Hi Bruno,
As discussed offline, I will propose some text to the authors of
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing for introducing a request to IANA for the
Segment Type registry. We can go with alphabetical instead of numeric values so
as to avoid mix-up/confusion with the individual protocol
Hi,
I am not aware of any IPRs related to this document.
Regards
Hooman
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 12:04 PM
To: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org
Cc: spring
Subject: IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment
Hi Authors, SPRING
Dear WG and Chairs,
I am not aware of any IPRs related to this document.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM
To: "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org"
Cc: spring
Subject: [spring] IPR
“As a contributor, I am not aware of any disclosed IPR related to this
document.”
Thanks,
Clay
From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:04 PM
To: "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org"
Cc: spring
Subject: [EXT][spring] IPR Poll:
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
I am NOT aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this draft.
Regards
Swadesh
From:
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 9:04 AM
To: "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org"
Cc: spring
Subject: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment
Hi Authors, SPRING
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;
I, as an author, am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks,
Rishabh
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:04 AM
To: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org
Cc: spring
Subject: IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment
Hi Authors,
I am NOT aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this draft.
-Arvind.
From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 9:04 AM
To: "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org"
Cc: spring
Subject: IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment
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,
Ø For the presenters in the Monday morning session, it would be good if you
could upload your slides no later than Sunday 2PM (Singapore time).
Please privilege the pdf file format over ppt. The experience prove that this
is better for everyone, both for presenting during the meeting
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
