Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08.txt

in this version we have better introduced the concept of the SRMS that is then referenced by routing protocol extensions drafts. thanks. s. > On Jun 16, 2017, at 12:19 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories.

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

> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:05 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: >> Monday, June 12, 2017 3:52 PM >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> sorry for the mess. I’m afraid,

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

Hi Rob, sorry for the mess. I’m afraid, the problem has been poorly described. We’re obviously NOT questioning the use of the Binding SID and we’re NOT proposing the removal of it. What we’re talking about is the set of RSVP-like/ERO-like subTLVs that have been defined in both isis and ospf

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11.txt

latest addressed comments. Thanks. s. > On May 23, 2017, at 9:12 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of the > IETF. > >

Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

intentions? > > Regards, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:

Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

> On May 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Hi all, > I have a belated (but hopefully late is still better than never) comment on > path protection as defined in Section 2 of the draft. > > This second para in this section says: >A

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-10.txt

Now, hopefully, this version addresses all comments (one was missing). s. > On May 8, 2017, at 7:40 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators > that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane, I’d agree with the above. Let’s simplify the document with, at the end, what

Re: [spring] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

sed concurrently or as a primary and backup > path where the secondary path is used when the primary failed." > But the "concurrently" word is IMO ambiguous as it could mean 1+1 scheme or > ECMP like behavior. > > Brgds, > > > -Original Message- > Fr

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07.txt

this version integrates shepherd review comments. Thanks. s. > On May 2, 2017, at 4:48 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of the >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-09.txt

this version integrates the latest comments from GENART, OPSDIR and RTGDIR reviews. s. > On May 2, 2017, at 4:43 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

> On May 1, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > Stefano, > > I won't argue further about the general issues, they are really > between you and the ADs. About this: > > ... >>> Minor issue: >>> >>> >>> The text of section 3 doesn't

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

> On May 1, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Brian Carpenter > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General

Re: [spring] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

Hi Lou, thanks for the comment. I integrated them in the new version I’ll submit asap. Thanks. s. > On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The Routing Directorate seeks to

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

Hi Pushpasis, I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the required protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp drafts, we already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been done. s. > On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar

Re: [spring] [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

John, Bruno, sorry for having missed that. I’ll resubmit right now. I integrated all comments. Regarding the missing "section 3.1" (referring to the isis draft), I replaced text with the reference to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext which defines the bgp-ls tlv for advertising the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-08.txt

updated version after reviews. s. > On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:21 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of the > IETF. > >Title

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-04.txt

new version with, hopefully, all comments, questions and issues being addressed. Thanks. s. > On Mar 9, 2017, at 1:05 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet

Re: [spring] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04

Hi Jon, many thanks for your review. Some comments inline. where you don’t see any answer to your comments is because I applied them to the draft. > On Mar 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Hardwick > wrote: > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing

Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-03

l Nits are your > choice to adopt/not-adopt. IETF LC and IESG review will provide you lots of > feedback on editorial nits. yup, I applied all of them. Thanks. s. > > > Sue > > -Original Message- > From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-03.txt

this drafts integrates comments received during WG last and shepherd reviews. Thanks. s. > On Mar 3, 2017, at 3:53 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > <sprev...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu>

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > I support publication of the document as an informational RFC. > > Below are my comments. > > Thanks, > Anoop > > == > > - pg 5, line 1 > What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number? Is there a >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

Hi Bruno, thanks for the review. I integrated all the comments in the new version I’m going to submit very soon. One last comment here below: > On Feb 22, 2017, at 2:00 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > 2) For the document write up, are there any known deployment of >

Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop

972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecit

Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Hi all, > I would like to point to what looks to me as inconsistency between the > current (-05) version of the SR YANG Data Model draft and the latest (-06) > version of the Segment Routing

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

as co-author, I support the publication of this draft. Thanks. s. > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02 [1]. > > Please read the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04.txt

Hi, this version integrates comments received during shepherd review. Thanks. s. > On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:34 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11.txt

Hi, this version integrates various comments received during the WG last call and by the shepherd review. Thanks. s. > On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a

Re: [spring] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > > This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017)There are > two implementations describe on the wiki at: >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe

support as co-author. s. > On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:08 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03 [1]. > > Please read the document if you haven't read the most

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-06.txt

integrated various comments from various contributors. Thanks. s. > On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-07.txt

this is the updated version after all received comments. Thanks. s. > On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of

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

Stewart, I applied some of your comments in the new submitted version of the draft. Some other comments below. > On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > Here are a number of WGLC comments on this document. > > - Stewart > > Segment

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

I support as co-author. s. > On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05 [1]. > > ¤ Please read the document if you

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

Hi Uma, We'll add a couple of statements on that matter. Thanks. s. -Original Message- From: Uma Chunduri [uma.chund...@huawei.com] Received: Monday, 30 Jan 2017, 6:40PM To: Stewart Bryant [stewart.bry...@gmail.com]; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com]; Martin Horneffer [m

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

I agree with Martin, I think we have discussed this at length and I wouldn't re-spin the debate (and come to the same conclusion again and again). The manageability section of the architecture draft mention that a node may want to signal its stack capabilities and we have igp extensions for

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases

I support this draft. s. > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > Hello WG, > > this e-mail initiates a two-week WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases > [1]. > > All the authors have already replied to the IPR poll. > There is no known

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

as an author, I support this draft. s. > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > WG, > > this is a reminder, please express your opinion regarding this WG LC. > > Thank you > > -m > > Le 28/11/2016 à 10:37, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : >> Hello

Re: [spring] Conflict resolution - a plea for simplicity

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 04/12/2016 15:53, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> Stewart, >> >> thanks for the feedback. >> >> Just to give you an update, the work currently

Re: [spring] Conflict resolution - a plea for simplicity

Stewart, thanks for the feedback. Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit/reduce the impact of a misconfiguration in presence of conflicting prefix/sid mappings. It is based on the concept that there’s no such

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

On Nov 30, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2016 10:38, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >>> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The following a

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > The following are my comments on this text in response to the WGLC. > A lot of comments are embedded in the draft text below. > > However I have some major overarching comments. Although this is called > an

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-04.txt

All, added more text explaining the various figures and examples. Thanks. s. > On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:58 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-03.txt

this is just a refresh. Note that this draft is in "Call For Adoption By WG” state. Thanks. s. > On Oct 17, 2016, at 1:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

liency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem Cohen; > DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > Subject: RE: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs > > Stephane, > Lots of thanks for an important clarification. > > But don’t you think that in addition to

Re: [spring] SPRING WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Authors, > >> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, >> 2016 4:44 PM >> >> Dear SPRING WG (and I've taken the liberty of cc'ing RTGWG), >> >> The authors have indicated that

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-05.txt

, necessary mechanisms SHOULD be provided ... to control when a repair > path ..." > "When" is important, but "how" is also important, especially for managed > protection. Would be good to add this. agreed. I’ll submit the new version with your comments a

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

ander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:09 PM > To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com> > Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; spring@ietf.org; > Ch

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > -Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi > (sprevidi) > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 PM > To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > > 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

Re: [spring] clarification of text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

Hi Chris, > On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > > 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

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-02.txt

FYI, just a refresh. s. > On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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 of the > IETF. > >Title

Re: [spring] REMINDER : Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

Hi Stephane, I’ll take care of this asap. Sorry for the delay. s. > On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:05 PM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Could you please check the comment’s below so we can continue to progress the > document ? > > Thanks ! > > From: spring

Re: [spring] 答复: Re: WG adoption requested for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:41 AM, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Stefano, > > see inline with [Deccan] > > Thanks > Deccan > > > > "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprev...@cisco.com> > 2016-08-23 23:22 > > 收件人 > "peng.

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info

timization. Without the local label, you will share the same sid among multiple prefixes. > even the first case in this draft is actually not SID sharing, otherwise it > will be cared by draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution. No, it is not a conflict. Having a dedicated srri repositor

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect

As co-author, I support the adoption of this document to WG item. I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:55 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been

Re: [spring] IPR for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls prior to WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:52 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been > requested for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls. Before

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc prior to WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:50 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been > requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc. Before

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing prior to (additional) WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:49 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, a second working group last call has > been requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt

Hi, integrated comments on SRMS and sRGB and added reference on Manageability and Security sections. Thanks. s. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 5:31 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt > has been successfully submitted by

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt

Hi, Security and Manageability sections have been added. Thanks. s. > On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt > has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the > IETF repository. >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-04.txt

Added text on LDP when used in “independent vs. ordered” distribution mode. thanks. s. > On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:51 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet

Re: [spring] [nvo3] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

an-...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG; > n...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; Stefano > Previdi (sprevidi) > Subject: Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and > draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header > > I agree with Robert and Jes

Re: [spring] RFC 7855 on Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement and Requirements

SPRING’ers, This is our first rfc. Now that we have a problem statement and requirements documents, we know what we have to do ;-) Thanks to everyone for the support. Thanks. s. > On May 26, 2016, at 1:48 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

the draft is about IPv6 extension header and more precisely a new type of the routing extension header defined in rfc2460. That’s the context. s. > > Tom > >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisc

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

. > > So VXLAN is off the table? it’s all about IP, not layer-2. s. > It would be worthwhile to clarify this in the draft. If you have a specific > encapsulation in mind, it would be great if the draft would specify it. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > >> -Origina

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

es the SR tunnel the outer encapsulation (including the SRH) is removed and the packet continues its journey like nothing happened. s. > > Thanks, > Tal. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] >> Sent:

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

> On May 16, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > > Hi Ole, > > Thanks for the prompt response. > > It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to > the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460. please read

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otr...@employees.org wrote: > > Tal, > >> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.] >> >> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment Endpoint >> Node’ updates the Destination IP address. >> Therefore, it must also update the

[spring] updated drafts

I just submitted: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 hopefully integrating the remaining comments from Sasha and Eric. Thanks. s. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

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

> On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > > Les, > > 2 quick things. > > 1. > >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >>1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR > capable nodes >

Re: [spring] Issue re PHP specification in SPRING drafts

Eric, > On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote: > > There seems to be some inconsistency in the various documents about the way > that penultimate hop popping is handled. > > When advertising a prefix-SID via OSPF, the OSPF Segment Routing extensions > associate

Re: [spring] Issue re PHP specification in SPRING drafts

Hi Eric, sorry, I missed that one and will look into this asap. s. > On May 9, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote: > > A few months back I pointed out a couple of small issues that I think need to > be addressed in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. I still think they

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt

final destination > > > > > Rabah Guedrez > Thésard > ORANGE/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/ITEQ > > Phone: +33 2 96 07 18 56 > rabah.gued...@orange.com > > > De : Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 13:46 >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt

[rabah.gued...@orange.com] Received: Thursday, 28 Apr 2016, 12:58 To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com] CC: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]; i...@ietf.org [i...@ietf.org] Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt You have said in a previous response

[spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt

just refreshed the draft. Comments are appreciated. Thanks. s. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt > Date: April 26, 2016 at 6:18:35 AM GMT+2 > To: Clarence Filsfils

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-01.txt

this is the latest update of the ldp-interop draft after various comments among which the ones from Alex (sorry from being so late). I hope it address most of the comments, knowing that the authors are still working on the manageability section (I just didn’t want to let the draft expire).

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

as co-author, I support the WG adoption of this draft s. > On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been > requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01.txt

just a refresh with updated references. Any comments/feedbakc is welcome. Thanks. s. > On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the

Re: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

gt; wrote: > > Stefano, > > Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, when I see a rev of this document > that addresses these items I will review and likely clear the discuss. > > Cheers > Terry > > On 5/04/2016, 4:04 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)&q

Re: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Terry, sorry for coming back late on this. See below: > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Terry Manderson > wrote: > > Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss > > When responding, please keep

Re: [spring] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi, see below for some comments. > On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact

Re: [spring] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Benoit, Segment Routing is the solution that addresses the requirements described in the problem-statement draft. Since the problem-statement draft is not supposed to include any reference to the solution, it has been agreed not to introduce the “Segment Routing” terminology. I’m fine

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07.txt

This is an update based on the various DISCUSS and comments received during IESG review. Following (hopefully) have been addressed: 1. more appropriate use of “SHOULD and “MUST” terminology. 2. clarification on dataplanes 3. Manageability section update 4. Security Section 5. Removed comparison

Re: [spring] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, See below some comments. > On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > The following is a

Re: [spring] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt

The update is related to the MPLS SRGB operations as agreed in the conflict-relsolution discussion. Nothing has changed, it’s only more text about the SRGB and how it is used in MPLS operations. s. > On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:36 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is

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

Hi Stephane, I agree with you. I also noticed that in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls we should have (probably) a better description on how to use SRGB and indexes. I propose to update draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls so that the conflict-resolution draft can point to it when

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

Les, it seems I missed most of the party… bad luck ;-) I fully agree with your approach and it looks we getting very close to “rough consensus” here. s. > On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Bruno – > > Taking a step back –

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

> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote: > > [Eric] Do you have an example in mind where it is useful to advertise > an Originator SRGB when the prefix in the NLRI is not a host > address? > > [Stefano] in fact I don’t have any good example where a /32 (/128) must

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

nator-SRGB with a prefix (other than a host address)? > > On 11/11/2015 3:00 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> I don’t want to constrain the advertisement of the Originator-SRGB to >> a /32 (or even to a loopback interface prefix). > > Do you have an example in

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

On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Eric C Rosen <ero...@juniper.net> wrote: > > On 11/6/2015 8:18 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> A prefix may have a shorter mask than 32 (or 128) and still be ok for >> the Originator SRGB to be there. > > Stefano, > &g

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

Hi Eric, the proposed text looks good but with one question below. On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Eric C Rosen > wrote: I'd like to make some suggestions for textual changes to sections 3.1 and 4.3 of draft-ietf-idr-prefix-sid. The main purpose of

[spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-00.txt

FYI, this is the proposal for carrying traffic using a common sid among prefixes. It covers multiple use cases that have been described on the email thread exchanged a couple of weeks ago. s. Begin forwarded message: From: > Subject:

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-06.txt

just fixed the ip addresses used in the various illustrations. s. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:47 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-00.txt

SPRINGers, this is the WG item version of the MSDC draft. Thanks. s. > On Oct 12, 2015, at 11:22 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > 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

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] Handling same SID mapped to different prefixes and vice versa cases

mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Stefano, From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:42 AM To: Pushpasis Sarkar Cc: Imtiyaz Mohammad, Stephane Litkowski, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)", Hannes Gredler, "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] Handling same SID mapped to different prefixes and vice versa cases

Pushpasis, On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Bruno, From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:43 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, &qu

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] Handling same SID mapped to different prefixes and vice versa cases

On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Robert, From: <rras...@gmail.com<mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:50 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar Cc: &q

  1   2   >