Re: [spring] Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

> On Jan 8, 2024, at 5:50 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > > This begins a two week LSR Working Group last call for the “Applicability of > IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource > Partition (NRP)”. Please express your support or objection prior to Tuesday, >

Re: [spring] [Lsr] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

; Sasha > > From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of > Dongjie (Jimmy) > Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 6:05 AM > To: Chongfeng Xie <mailto:chongfeng@foxmail.com>>; Acee Lindem <mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>>; lsr mailto:l...@ietf.org>>; &

Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Intended status of draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Hi Sasha, Gyan, I agree with Sasha. I’d add that I don’t think any information related to the resources associated with the SID should be encoded in the IGPs. Thanks, Acee > On Jan 23, 2024, at 04:00, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Gyan, and all, > I have re-read the draft >

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa (01/18/24 - 02/02/24)

Hi Yingzhen, I support publication of the document. It is referenced in the IGP YANG models. Thanks, Acee > On Jan 18, 2024, at 6:45 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > > Hi, > > This starts the Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa >

[spring] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

, it is not certain that it will go forward and it seems to be critical to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt. Thanks, Acee <<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06.orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>> > On Jan 8, 2024, at 5:50 PM, Acee Lindem

Re: [spring] [Lsr] Intended status ofdraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Hi Liyan, > On Jan 26, 2024, at 01:05, Liyan Gong wrote: > > Hi All， > > Thank you for all your sharing. I have read the discussion carefully and I > agree the following opinions--"the resource-aware SIDs would be > associated with a set of network resource", and "the control plane

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02

This is my preference for the protocol extension drafts. Thanks, Acee On 8/1/14, 3:48 PM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) sprev...@cisco.com wrote: my point is that description of use cases should be on a separate document in order to avoid replication of text between isis and ospf drafts. Protocol

Re: [spring] 答复: New Comments on Segment Routing(4): Challenge of Route Dependency for SR-BE Path

Hi Robin, I don’t know about other IGP implementations but the ones I’ve worked on do not resolve routes recursively (unlike LDP or BGP which do). There are cases where OSPF runs over a tunnel but in these cases the OSPF interface is either up or down dependent on the tunnel status. Hence, I

Re: [spring] 答复: 答复: New Comments on Segment Routing(4): Challenge of Route Dependency for SR-BE Path

Hi Robin, From: Lizhenbin lizhen...@huawei.commailto:lizhen...@huawei.com Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 at 6:11 AM To: Acee Lindem a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.netmailto:rob...@raszuk.net Cc: m...@ietf.orgmailto:m...@ietf.org m...@ietf.orgmailto:m

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

Hi Pushpasis, On Jul 30, 2015, at 2:22 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar psar...@juniper.netmailto:psar...@juniper.net wrote: HI Acee, From: Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:03 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ginsb...@cisco.commailto:ginsb

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ginsb...@cisco.commailto:ginsb...@cisco.com wrote: Robert - From: rras...@gmail.commailto:rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:45 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc:

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

Hi Pushpasis, On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar psar...@juniper.netmailto:psar...@juniper.net wrote: Hi Acee, From: Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:37 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar psar...@juniper.netmailto:psar...@juniper.net Cc

Re: [spring] FW: Adoption Call for draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header-07

You guys release that you should be supporting on the 6man list i...@ietf.org. These are all going to ipv6-boun...@ietf.org. Acee On 8/7/15, 11:45 AM, spring on behalf of Jeff Tantsura spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jeff.tants...@ericsson.com wrote: Yes/support Cheers, Jeff

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

Hi Rabah, From: spring spring-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of rabah.gued...@orange.commailto:rabah.gued...@orange.com rabah.gued...@orange.commailto:rabah.gued...@orange.com Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

I strongly prefer option 1. The purpose of the SRGB range is to allow devices in the segment routing domain to use different MPLS label ranges for segment routing. This is necessary either due to the devices having allocated MPLS label ranges for other purposes (e.g., LDP or static LSPs) or the

Re: [spring] working group adoption call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop

I support WG adoption as there is a strong requirement for interoperability. Thanks, Acee On 7/22/15, 3:17 PM, spring on behalf of John G.Scudder spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@juniper.net wrote: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

It appears there are varying opinions on deployment models. A global SID is used as an offset into a node’s local SRGB(s) in order to derive the ingress label used for the associated prefix (or other construct) for that node. There are two opinions on deployment. The first model is that the

Re: [spring] [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-01

Hi Eric, On 11/9/15, 10:22 AM, "spring on behalf of Eric C Rosen" wrote: >Hi Stefano, > >>>If a BGP route is received that contains a Prefix-SID attribute >>>with an >>>Originator SRGB TLV, but the prefix field of the NLRI does

Re: [spring] [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-01

Hi Eric, On 11/17/15, 12:15 PM, "Eric C Rosen" wrote: >On 11/17/2015 10:31 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> to me it makes sense to advertise the SRGB along with ANY prefix >> originated by that node, regardless the mask-length. > >But in that case, you don't know

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Stephane - Why do need to use different label blocks, i.e., for different topologies? You have two other simpler options: 1. Just allocate SIDs to prefix, mt_id tuples. So if a node has SIDs [1-10], just allocate a unique SID to each unique combinations of tuple. 2. For a node,

Re: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Hi Anil, From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil...@huawei.com<mailto:anil...@huawei.com>> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:04 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, Pushpasis Sarkar <psar...@juniper.net<mail

Re: [spring] [mpls] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Hi Robert, On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Robert Raszuk > wrote: ​Hey Acee, ​ In MPLS, one label is like any other label (except for the first 15 which are reserved). I think you are missing a whole lot of context here - you can’t just declare a new

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

utions can be seen in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/attach/spring/txtk0n56G.txt - many thanx to Bruno for writing this. However, there is an alternative solution which was suggested (notably by Acee Lindem) after the draft was written. This alternative is to ignore the entire set of SRG

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

I support WG adoption. The conflict resolution document is required for standard SID conflict error handling across all protocols and vendors. Thanks, Acee On 4/14/16, 3:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote:

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution - Preference Algorithm

Hi Les, Bruno, See one inline. From: spring > on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 2:06 PM To: Bruno Decraene

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05

I support publication of this standards track document. It is essential for co-existence and migration with/from LDP based MPLS control planes and SR based MPLS control planes. Thanks, Acee On 2/6/17, 8:20 AM, "spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

Hi, I have read the document and support publication. Thanks, Acee On 1/27/17, 6:05 AM, "spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on

Re: [spring] [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution

From: spring > on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > Date: Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM To: Robert Raszuk > Cc:

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

Hi Les, I agree with the responses. On 7/11/17, 3:46 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: >Acee - > >Thanx for your support abd your comments. >Responses inline. > >> -Original Message- >> From: spring [mailto:spring

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

I fully support this document and, now that we have reached consensus, believe we should publish it before anyone changes their minds… I have reviewed the -05 version and have the following comments: 1. Section 3.1 - Make it clear that a larger preference is more preferred. While this is

Re: [spring] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

eter > > > > On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote: > > > Acee, > > > > > > my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label > > > Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used >for > > > SRMS adverti

Re: [spring] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Hi Bruno, From: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>> Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:37 AM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-i

Re: [spring] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one. Thanks, Acee From: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM To: OSPF WG List <o...@ietf.org<mailto:o...@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org&g

Re: [spring] Slot request for IETF 100

Hi Shraddha, If your SR traffic statistics draft progresses, the ietf-segment-routing model would need to be augmented. I don’t see having the YANG model augmentations as a prerequisite. Thanks, Acee From: spring > on behalf of Shraddha

Re: [spring] [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Actually, support as a contributor to the document. Thanks, Acee On 12/9/17, 7:00 AM, "mpls on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <mpls-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@cisco.com> wrote: >Support - this is an important document that captures the extensive >discussion on the

Re: [spring] [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Support - this is an important document that captures the extensive discussion on the topic. Thanks, Acee On 12/9/17, 2:35 AM, "mpls on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote: >Support as co-author > >On 08/12/2017,

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

Speaking as a SPRING WG member who is not a Co-Author, I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: spring on behalf of Rob Shakir Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:21 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Working Group Adoption

Re: [spring] [OSPF] Experimental support of OSPFv2 Segment Routing in Free Range Routing

Hi Olivier, Great news Olivier! I’m hoping you are looking at OSPFv3 Extended LSAs and OSPFv3 SR as well. Thanks, Acee From: OSPF on behalf of Olivier Dugeon Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:13 PM To: SPRING WG List ,

Re: [spring] Yang data model for SID forwarding counters

Hi Tim, From: spring on behalf of "Yutianpeng (Tim)" Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] Yang data model for SID forwarding counters Hi, I am trying to find data model for SID forwarding counters, but I only find SRV6 based counters in

Re: [spring] New Version of draft-farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect

Hi Adrian, On 10/13/18, 1:11 PM, "spring on behalf of Adrian Farrel" wrote: Hi, Nothing much happening with this draft. The new revision fixes a reference. We think our work here is done although it is disappointing that a couple of (informative) references

[spring] Status of "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane" - draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-18

Authors, Martin, What is the status of this draft? It is currently blocking publication of all the initial (MPLS)a LSR segment routing drafts and it seems to have stalled. Thanks, Acee ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

Hi Chris, Olivier, On 5/10/19, 4:41 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian Franke" wrote: On 5/10/19 9:58 AM, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: > In the current state of Segment Routing drafts, do you think it is possible to advertise > Adjacency SID on such passive or inter-domain

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang: question about absolute SIDs

Resent-From: Resent-To: Stephane Litkowski , , Acee Lindem , Pushpasis Sarkar , Jeff Tantsura Resent-Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 11:17 AM Hi all, I have a quick question about the ietf-segment-routing-common YANG module. Prefix-SIDs can be configured using either an index or an absolute

Re: [spring] Updates to draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Hi Huaimo, This is good as far as my comments on the encoding and draft name. This draft is somewhat new territory as you have an IGP router which is not the source of the prefix originating an LSA for the prefix. Thanks, Acee From: spring on behalf of Huaimo Chen Date: Monday, November 11,

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Speaking as WG member: In the past, we developed protocol encodings that afforded future extendibility. I don't see the problem with the including the SID structure sub-sub-TLV and would support progression. Thanks, Acee On 4/10/20, 2:45 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Derek Yeung" wrote: Hi,

Re: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/

Support as co-author. Thanks, Acee From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 1:59 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/ Dear SPRING WG: This email starts a

Re: [spring] Last Call: (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard

epth (MSD)D in the YANG; I suspect that it is spurious. Tom Petch On 24/11/2020 09:34, tom petch wrote: > On 23/11/2020 17:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> See a couple responses inline enclosed in and . We are >> addressing the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-26.txt

is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of the IETF. Title : YANG Data Model for Segment Routing Authors : Stephane Litkowski Yingzhen Qu A

Re: [spring] Last Call: (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom, On 11/24/20, 4:34 AM, "tom petch" wrote: On 23/11/2020 17:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Tom, > > See a couple responses inline enclosed in and . We are addressing the rest of your comments. > > On 11/18/20, 7:

Re: [spring] Last Call: (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom, See a couple responses inline enclosed in and . We are addressing the rest of your comments. On 11/18/20, 7:39 AM, "tom petch" wrote: IANA Considerations does not register the module names used in the modules This is in the IANA considerations... This document registers

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-28.txt

Authors : Stephane Litkowski Yingzhen Qu Acee Lindem Pushpasis Sarkar Jeff Tantsura Filename: draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-28.txt Pages : 40

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Hi Loa, In most cases, I believe that if the component acronyms are either well-known or expanded, there is no requirement to expand the hyphenated combination acronym. Thanks, Acee On 10/30/20, 12:32 AM, "spring on behalf of Loa Andersson" wrote: Working Group, I support

Re: [spring] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

HI Eric, See inline. On 1/14/21, 8:46 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in

Re: [spring] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roman, Please see inline. On 1/20/21, 10:13 PM, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" wrote: Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses

Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, See one inline. On 1/21/21, 5:42 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: Hi Acee, On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:19:35PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Ben, > Thanks for your review. > > On 1/21/21, 4:08 AM, "Benjamin Kad

Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, Thanks for your review. On 1/21/21, 4:08 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" wrote: Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email

Re: [spring] Re： MSR6 side meeting at IETF 112

It appears that it overlaps the Routing Area Open Meeting… Am I missing something? From: spring on behalf of Yisong Liu Date: Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 7:02 AM To: spring Cc: chengweiqiang , "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" , Michael McBride , Robin Li Subject: [spring] Re： MSR6 side

Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression

Speaking as a WG chair from another WG: If you followed the SPRING debate preceding the formation of the DT, it was obvious that allowing open membership to the DT would not have been feasible given the number of people participating and the combative tone of the discussion. I think the chairs

Re: [spring] IETF 114 MeetEcho Room Closed

I just got a ping that it is up on WebEx Teams… I’ll try again. From: Ketan Talaulikar Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:12 AM To: Acee Lindem Cc: SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] IETF 114 MeetEcho Room Closed There is some issue with meetecho it seems. I hope someone from the room

[spring] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions

On 8/30/22, 10:48 AM, "IETF Secretariat" wrote: The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions has been changed to "WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" from "In WG Last Call" by Acee Lindem: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i

Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Hi Jen, Coauthors, et al, I have read this document and support publication. The document contains useful information and can hopefully be reference to avoid rehashing the relationship between IPv6 Addressing Architecture and SRv6 SIDs. I have two comments. 1. Since this document has an

Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Hi Suresh, Adrian, From: spring on behalf of Suresh Krishnan Date: Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:17 PM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Jen Linkova , 6man , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-sids.auth...@ietf.org" , "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: Re:

Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability

I agree – it’s great to document the implementations but let’s not require every line of the drafts to implemented prior to publication. Thanks, Acee From: spring on behalf of Tony Przygienda Date: Friday, August 12, 2022 at 11:05 AM To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" Cc: John Scudder ,