I am not aware of any relevant IPR other than the one already disclosed.
Chris
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:25 AM wrote:
> Hi Authors, SPRING WG,
>
>
>
> Authors of draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths [1] have
> asked for WG adoption.
>
>
>
> This email starts a poll for IPR.
>
>
>
the value in the Loc-Size field?
Chris
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:49 AM Peter Psenak wrote:
> Chris,
>
> please see inline:
>
>
> On 23/03/2020 17:39, Chris Bowers wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > The proposed SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV has several problems.
> >
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 12/03/2020 15:58, Chris Bowers wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > I think that the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV should be removed from
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. I think that we should leave the
> > ability to include sub-sub-
ork-programming authors since we
> are now back to discussing the ISIS extensions.
>
>
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Bowers
> *Sent:* 05 March 2020 21:53
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> *Cc:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; l...@ietf.org
g. Length for an endpoint behavior that doesn't use an
argument? Are there any use cases envisioned where an ISIS speaker needs
to know the Arg. Length ?
Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Bowers
> *Sent:* 02 March 2020 23:39
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Clarification inline [Bruno]
>
>
>
> *From**:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 11:11 AM
> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Chris Bowers
> *Cc:* l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List;
> draft-ietf-spring-sr
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 27/02/2020 17:54, Chris Bowers wrote:
> > LSR WG,
> >
> > Section 9 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-05 defines the SRv6
> > SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV. In particular, it defines encoding for the
> > locator block length and th
es
>
>
> I have a response for your comment right after the examples that use
> "Incoming label=1008" and "Incoming label=1015"
>
>
> Ahmed
>
>
>
> On 6/8/18 11:14 AM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
> SPRING WG,
>
> I generally support publi
Stewart,
I wanted to follow up on the question you asked following the presentation
in
SPRING on Monday on draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths.
After thinking about your question more, I think I understand it better.
If I understand your question, I think you are concerned that
Bruno and Rob,
I'd like to request a 10 minute time slot to discuss
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths.
I plan to present.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-02
Thanks,
Chris
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:30 AM, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
SPRING WG,
I generally support publication of
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. However, I think
that the text in sections 2.5 and 2.6 (on incoming label collisions)
needs some work before publication. This text was added to
the draft a few months ago, and has not gotten much review
from
incorporated?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:42 AM
To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] clarification of text in
draft-ietf-spring-segment-rout
to publish that revision so that the WG can review it?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:58 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele
SPRING WG,
The current text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 regarding the
"Strict Shortest Path" algorithm reads as follows.
o "Strict Shortest Path": This algorithm mandates that the packet is
forwarded according to ECMP-aware SPF algorithm and instruct any
router in the
As far as I can tell, this request for clarification of the text in
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 has not been addressed.
Thanks,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:24 AM
To: spring
SPRING WG,
The following paragraph in section 3.2.1 of
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 is confusing.
The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a prefix,
advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the
advertised algorithm. In other words,
Authors and WG,
It seems to me that this document should explicitly state how to handle
prefixes and SIDs advertised with different values of the SR-algorithm field.
Here SR-algorithm refers to SPF or Strict SPF, and not the Preference Algorithm
defined in this draft.
Presumably receiving
.@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 2:05 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@ericsson.com>; Hannes Gredler
<han...@juniper.net>; Pushpasis Sarkar <psar...@juniper.net>; Chris Bowers
<cbow...@juniper.net>; Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net>;
All,
It appears that section 3.6.3 of this draft which covers using the binding-sid
to advertise a mirroring context got dropped between
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-00 and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-01,
in February.Presumably this was done because it didn't have any text in
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Uma Chunduri; Hannes Gredler; Chris Bowers; Chris Bowers; Uma Chunduri;
Hannes Gredler
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-bowers-spring-advertising-lsps
) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS
dataplane
On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
Stefano,
Thanks. Is there a mechanism
21 matches
Mail list logo
