Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, Draft under the adoption call as well as its author sent 10s if not more messages stating that CRH-SIDs are **locally significant*. * Now after few discussions about scaling aspects of such design choice you are suddenly stating: *" one exemplary solution to your objection is to make use

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

2020 20:41 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR.. In Section 3.1 of RFC 79

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

before the horse in this case. Thanks, Ketan From: Gyan Mishra Sent: 28 May 2020 20:27 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern ; Ron Bonica ; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM > *To:* Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern < > j...@joelhalpern.com> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:56, John Scudder wrote: Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of course this objection only applies to the final

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:33, John Scudder wrote: On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT:

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT: The CRH-FIB can be populated: o By an operator,

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:12, John Scudder wrote: [long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing going to be supported? By having the

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

.@juniper.net>>; Joel M. > Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> > > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org > <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org>>

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

to:rbon...@juniper.net>>; Joel M. Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org <mailto:6...@ietf.org>> > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

NSB - CN/Shanghai) > > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM > > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica > > ; Joel M. Halpern > > *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > > *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> *Subject:* RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* Hi Ron, After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid and Adj-sidforw

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all CRH-SIDs (allocated to prefix-sid and Adj-sid) are of local significance in fact, its operation actually is no

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM To: Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [Ex

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Regards > Ketan > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ron Bonica > > Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14 > > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern < > j...@joelhalpern.com> > > Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> > >

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Hi Ron, Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) tha

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 28/5/20 08:46, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: [...] Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) I find it kind of amusing when folks

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

n.com>> Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; 6man <6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, It would not be fair to say that

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

18:51 To: "otr...@employees.org" , Sander Steffann Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Robert Raszuk Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ole, When comm

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

at 18:51 To: "otr...@employees.org" , Sander Steffann Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Robert Raszuk Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] > On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Ole, > > When commenting on list, could you

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

om: otr...@employees.org > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ; > spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar > (ketant) > Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Sander, >> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate >>

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, Thanks for that clarification. I note that you are not anymore saying "Are not

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Sander, >> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate >> any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather >> then rational list of requirements. > > My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent. > They

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Robert, > Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate > any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather > then rational list of requirements. My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron sent. They want a

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

ca-6man-comp-rtg-hdr? Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Ron Bonica Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CR

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to eliminate any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at hand rather then rational list of requirements. Btw please observe that most if not all of the below "Does not want" are optional in any solution. If

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

alf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:42 AM To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [SNIP] I am looking for explanation of the "other ways

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

(ketant) Cc: Joel M. Halpern ; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:21 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > I'll point you to RFC7855, R

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

el M. Halpern Sent: 22 May 2020 20:06 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH None of those documents drive the need for SRv6.Even the problem statem

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

etc.) before we start > designing tyres for it. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > -Original Message- > From: Joel M. Halpern > Sent: 22 May 2020 10:02 > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spr

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH None of those documents drive the need for SRv6.Even the problem statement doesn't really geet us there. More importantly, SRH does not fully

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

To: Bob Hinden Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Robert Raszuk ; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Hi Bob, Perhaps I will try to make my case to you (and everyone else here) … one last time. This is how I've s

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, I am trying to figure out which documents you think were adopted and approved elsewhere to drive the 6man work on SRH. I did find RFC 8354, which was a use case. It is not a problem statement. It is most defi

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22/5/20 02:20, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: Hi Joel, I'll point you to RFC7855, RFC8355 and RFC8402 that cover both the data-planes for Spring. Then the RFC8354 which is focussed on SRv6. All this body of work along with a whole lot of discussion and brainstorming happening in the

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

) ; Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Actually Ketan, As an operator – I am looking for the tyre – I want the building block – because it allows me to both us

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

. Thanks Andrew From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Friday, 22 May 2020 08:24 To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH I am thinking that the operators

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

org>; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, I am trying to figure out which documents you think were adopted and approved elsewhere to drive the 6man work on SRH. I did find RFC 8354, which was a use case. It is not a probl

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

2020 09:03 > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Brian Carpenter > ; Ron Bonica ; > Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) > ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; > 6man <6...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of &g

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

; Ron Bonica ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ketan, > On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > mailto:ketant=40cisco

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

s not a decision to publish it. Bob (w/ w.g. chair hat on) > > Thanks, > Ketan > > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter > Sent: 22 May 2020 04:18 > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica > ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) > ; Robert Raszuk > Cc:

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica ; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Robert Raszuk Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: ...> It is the 6man charter tha

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22-May-20 03:35, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > There is a clear need for documenting a genuine use-case & architecture for > CRH beyond SPRING, before adoption. Why? We are only deciding whether to pass editorial control of the draft to the WG. If the WG wants to add text about the use

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: ...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing solution.. > “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 > specifications.” If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

t Raszuk Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Cheng, Are you assuming that the SPRING charter precludes 6man from ever defining another Routing header unless it originates in SPRING? After all, every IPv6 Routing

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Chengli (Cheng Li) Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 12:24 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) ; Ron Bonica ; Robert Raszuk Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH [External

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Bonica ; Robert Raszuk Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH Ron, I sensed that you will propose that … hence I already asked this question in my last email, Let me repeat. In rev 10 of the CRH document[1], the followin

[spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Ron, I sensed that you will propose that … hence I already asked this question in my last email, Let me repeat. In rev 10 of the CRH document[1], the following SIDs with normative reference to SRm6 were defined but removed in Feb. 2020: "The following are valid segment types: o Adjacency.