Hi Jeffrey,
thank you for your kind consideration of my comments and
thoughtfully addressing them. The updates did the job for me, thank you.
You may consider just provide the reference leaving "out of the scope" out
like:
OLD TEXT:
The latter is outside the scope of
this document but
Jeffrey,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response and my sincere apologies for the delayed
response.
Your latest answers indicate that we are converging. I believe that once these
changes are done, the document would indeed provide the architectural
extensions I had in mind for this kind of
Jeffrey,
Lots of thanks for a detailed response.
You response seems to indicate that the Replication Segment draft defines the
architectural extensions associated with the new type of segment. If so, it
does not, from my POV, introduce them as such in a sufficiently clear and
unambiguous way.
Hi Greg, all,
Please see zzh> below.
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 7:07 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake ; spring@ietf.org;
Alexander Vainshtein ;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk
;
Hi Sasha,
Please see zzh> below.
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:25 AM
To: Greg Mirsky ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake ; spring@ietf.org;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk
;
(spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org)
Hi Sasha, Ketan, Greg, John, all,
I hope my email (attached) in response to Sasha’s original email, answers many
questions brought up in this thread.
Thanks.
Jeffrey
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 3:00 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake ;
Hi,
Please see some clarifications below.
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 5:12 PM
To: (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org)
;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] The SPRING WG
Hi Ketan,
thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comment. In
the draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment I find the following
statement:
A Replication segment at ingress node of Multi-point
service replicates packets directly to each egress node of the
service, without need
Hi,
Given that this draft, gratuitously, ignores all of the aspects of SR multicast
that need to be considered, it would be ill-advised to consider advancing it.
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
Hi Greg,
Please check inline.
From:
Ketan,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and encouraging response.
I will try to provide additional inputs missing architectural issues related to
the Replication Segment draft.
Regarding Path Segment that has been recently introduced by the WG – I am
fully aware of this work.
From my POV this
It appears that we are putting the cart before the horse and trying to pretend
otherwise
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
Hi Greg,
Please check inline.
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: 17 November 2019 13:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John
Hi Greg,
Please check inline.
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: 17 November 2019 13:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake ; spring@ietf.org;
Alexander Vainshtein ;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk
;
(spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org)
Subject: Re:
Hi Sasha,
Thanks for your clarifications and it helps a lot.
It might help further if you could share your thoughts on what content you find
missing from an architecture POV beyond what is already in the
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.
I note that we, as the WG, have recently
Dear colleagues,
I would like to clarify why, from my POV, the Replication Segment introduces in
this draft requires extensions to SR Architecture as defined in RFC 8402.
1. RFC 8402 states that segments can be global (to an SR Dimain) or local (to a
single node that instantiates it), and all
Hi Ketan,
thank you for your suggestion. As you've pointed out, the draft in
discussion introduces a new segment type, Replication Segment, to realize
p2mp behavior in an SR domain. Looking into RFC 8402, I find the following
statement regarding multicast:
6. Multicast
Segment Routing is
Hi Greg/Sasha/All,
I really wonder whether we are talking about the same document anymore. The
subject of this thread is
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00
It is indeed possible that you and others are referring to some other
document(s)?
From reading of
Dear All,
I concur with Sasha and John. Intended ingress replication of a particular
flow, though using a unicast destination address, is still a multicast.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:36 AM John E Drake wrote:
> Robert,
>
> As Sasha and I have indicated, your position is your own
Robert,
As Sasha and I have indicated, your position is your own and is not consistent
with the majority of work on this topic. I’m fine w/ agreeing to disagree.
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:57 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
John,
> Your claim that ingress replication is not
John,
> Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a
stretch.
I use a very basic and simple rule of thumb ... if address of my packet is
a multicast address then it is multicast if not it is unicast.
Ref:
Robert,
I'm sorry for the confusion. My only point was that MVPN provides the
reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of tunnel
types in a consistent manner, as Sasha alluded to in his mention of PMSI. Your
claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at
Hi,
I think Sasha has a valid point. Further, ingress replication has been part of
MVPN since forever.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: spring@ietf.org;
Sasha,
If I have some content and I send it to you and your neighbour as two
unicast streams am I suddenly doing multicast ?
IMHO N number of replicated unicasts is still not a multicast.
Multicast in my definition requires multicast groups, receiver joins, tree
building protocols etc ... and
Hi all,
I have a question regarding adoption of
draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document.
These concerns are based on the following:
1. This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals with
local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in
23 matches
Mail list logo
