Hi Peng,
I am not sure if you got a response on your email below.
I believe the authors of the draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing are planning to
address the gap for the Segment Type 7 as specified in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-02#section-4
which should
Hi WG,
Yes, support the draft to be adopted by the WG. Path segment is an important
work for the scenarios of SR OAM/PM, etc.
Thanks,
Zhenbin (Robin)
On 2019-02-20, 4:01 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
wrote:
Hi SPRING WG,
This email initiates a two week call for working
Rakesh, authors,
I have not been thinking about this too much. But if you look at fig 2
of draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment, and you need a GACh between
A and D, I'd say that the GAL will be at the bottom of stack.
What if you need the CACh for the sub-path B to C, where will the GAL
go?
Hi WG,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Rakesh
On 2019-02-20, 4:01 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
wrote:
Hi Jeff, authors, SPRING WG,
In parallel to the call for adoption for
draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment (1), we would like to poll for IPR.
Bruno,
Please let me reach out to E/// IPR department (BCCed).
I’ll let them comment.
Thanks
Cheers,
Jeff
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：bruno.decra...@orange.com
> 收件人：SPRING WG ;Jeff Tantsura
> ;draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org
> ;
> 日 期 ：2019年02月20日 17:02
> 主 题 ：IPR Poll for
Hi WG,
Yes, support WG adoption of this draft.
Thanks,
Rakesh (as a co-author)
On 2019-02-20, 4:01 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
wrote:
Hi SPRING WG,
This email initiates a two week call for working group adoption for
draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment.
Please
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for your comments.
There is a companion draft where this TLV is defined. We can add reference/text
to indicate this.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp-00#section-3.2.3.1
Hope this answers your question.
Thanks,
Rakesh
On 2019-02-14, 9:43 AM,
Hi WG,
We have posted following 3 IETF drafts on SR Performance Monitoring:
1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp-00
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-mpls-00
3.
Hi Loa,
I think it will be similar to SPME and we'll need to have another SR-tunnel
B-C with its own Path segment allocated by node C. But GAL will still be
BoS.
Regards,
Greg.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:15 PM Loa Andersson wrote:
> Rakesh, authors,
>
> I have not been thinking about this too
Greg,
We are close, though I hope the rules are that GAL is bottom of stack,
and that a packet with a GACh does not carry user payload.
I should have said that "if you want a GACg for the
I don't understand why we need a "new" SR tunnel, the GAL/GACh can
ride with the GAL as bottom of stack
Hi Loa,
another tunnel with the Path segment from node C is, in my view, very close
to SPME tunnel. The Path segment from C is needed because Path segment from
D is not known to the node C, cannot be associated with the right SR-tunnel
segment, i.e., tunnel B-C. The fate sharing may be achieved by
11 matches
Mail list logo
