Hi Ron, to follow up on what was said at the mic.
The current community analysis, comparing existing solutions (SRv6 and SR-MPLS
for IPv6) with SRm6, had the following result:
- a lot of differences (Architecture, Dataplane, Controlplane) and hence
engineering cost
- scale, performance and
Hi,
Thanks, looks good!
Regards … Zafar
From: spring on behalf of "Pengshuping (Peng
Shuping)"
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:26 PM
To: "spring@ietf.org"
Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [spring] IETF 106 SPRING WG Agenda uploaded
Hi all,
The SPRING WG agenda is now available
Ron,
I don't understand why changing the filename should be an issue, isn't
it the title of the document that needs to be changed?
And the approximately 100 time the term "SRv6+" is used in the document.
/Loa
On 18/11/2019 12:05, Ron Bonica wrote:
Darren,
No problem. We will change the
Darren,
No problem. We will change the filename next time we update the document.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:36 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: SPRING WG ;
Hi Ron and SRm6 authors.
The use of the name “SRv6+” is still causing confusion amongst the community,
and even during presentations by the authors of this series of drafts (eg
NANOG).
It needs to be changed in the doc names and removed from further presentations.
This was promised in this
SPRING-WG:
Posted a new version (05) of “draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy” draft
addressing the agreed upon changes.
Thanks,
Siva
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:29 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: RE:
Hi David, Shuping,
As your inputs, Marvel and MTN cases have been captured in the SRv6 deployment
status draft. Please check it out from the following i-d announce.
Thank you for your contribution!
Best regards,
--satoru
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
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
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of the
IETF.
Title : Segment Routing Policy Architecture
Authors : Clarence Filsfils
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
