[spring] Regarding draft-saad-spring-srfa-link

WG, We would like to redraw your attention to draft-saad-spring-srfa-link [1] which discusses the usage of Forwarding Adjacency (FA) links in SR networks. An earlier version of the draft [2] was presented in the SPRING WG session in IETF-106 (see minutes captured in [3]). All comments received

[spring] Regarding Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies [draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy]

Authors, This draft is introducing a specific type of transport profile for SR policy paths. To be more precise, it is introducing "Bandwidth Constrained Bidirectional Corouted Pinned Path SR policies" with restoration and/or reversion features enabled. I'm not sure if "Circuit-Styled" is an apt

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

WG, Hi! advocates a couple of options for determining which slice-aggregate the packet belongs to: (a) Segment Range as Slice Selector (b) Global Identifier as Slice Selector In option (a), which is what is relevant for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn, the following is advocated: "..

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt

Ketan, Hi! Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB). Regards, -Pavan On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:04 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > Hi Pavan, > > > > Please check inline below. > > > > *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram > *Sent:* 10 November 2020 00:08 &g

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt

Ketan, Much Thanks for taking a stab at addressing the composite candidate path use-case! We seem to be converging. However, I don’t understand why you need to use additional SR policies (and unnecessarily burn additional colors) to address this. Why can’t the composite candidate path just be a

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Strongly support adoption -- the document addresses an important missing piece of functionality (also helps that the document is more than sufficiently baked for the WG to take it forward). Regards, -Pavan On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:25 AM wrote: > Hi SPRING WG, > > > > Authors of

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang

I strongly support adoption of this draft -- it is an integral part of the SR Policy toolkit. -Pavan (as a co-author) On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:38 AM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > This email begins a 2 week WG adoption call for >

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy (ver 03)

fining "local" share of the > traffic within specific candidate-path, in comparison with other > sub-candidate-paths in that particular candidate-path > > thanks, > pk > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:42 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan.i...@gmail.com> wro

[spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy (ver 03)

Authors, Hi! There are some use-cases where the candidate-path (multipath) needs to be constructed in such a way that a part of the multipath (a set of segment-lists) uses one set of constraints, while the other part (another set of segment-lists) uses another set of constraints. Consider the

Re: [spring] New spring WG Co-Chair

Martin, Much Thanks for all your efforts as spring co-chair! Congratulations on the new role! Rob, Welcome! Great to have you take this up.. Regards, -Pavan On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote: > Dear spring WG: > > As all of you already know, Martin