[spring] Do you consider "steering large portion of a SD-WAN path over SR domain" as the "application" in the SPRING charter? RE: Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Rob, You said: robjs> You can imagine the SR-TE policy work breaks down this way: we discuss the "application" which is steering traffic onto sets of SR paths, and define a functional specification document for how that works. If that is realised in BGP (as it is being today), IDR owns the

Re: [spring] IETF 102 - SPRING meeting

Hi Bruno, I would like to get a 10 minute slot to present https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks-01.txt Speaker will be myself. Thanks! Linda Dunbar From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

On 19/06/2018 13:38, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Stewart, Speaking as individual contributor, please see inline [Bruno] *From:*spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Stewart Bryant *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:19 PM On 01/06/2018 17:05, Rob Shakir wrote:

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi I do not quite get the same warm and fuzzy from the definition when thinking about multicast….. The mapping of the binding SID to local policy is still IMO per path state. For a simple p2p path it is pretty straightforward as the mapping can be to a common policy abstraction at every node

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi Robert, OK, so I understand this a bit more. Yes, we could introduce a m/c tree in the middle of the network and have the leaves terminate in anything. That would include an SR unicast path and/or a new m/c tree or any combination thereof. What you have to do is to place the correct

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Yes, I agree. - S On 19/06/2018 16:53, David Allan I wrote: Hi I do not quite get the same warm and fuzzy from the definition when thinking about multicast….. The mapping of the binding SID to local policy is still IMO per path state. For a simple p2p path it is pretty straightforward

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Bruno, Stewart and all, I have looked up Section 5 “Binding Segment” of the Segment Routing Architecture draft, and it says: In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service independence, SR utilizes a

[spring] A question about Mirror SID and its advertisement using IS-IS

Hi all, I have a question about Mirror SID as defined in the SR Architecture draft and its advertisement defined in the IS-IS extensions for SR draft.

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

For clarification: Can I assume that we are talking about replication at ingress to a series of  unicast SR paths each to an installed multicast tree close to egress? - Stewart On 10/06/2018 10:58, Robert Raszuk wrote: Hey Sasha, 100% agree with your last post. Very glad to see your

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi Stewart, Nope that would be incorrect assumption. Replication anchors would be where topologically it makes sense. And there may not be at all any multicast trees those subject flows would need to traverse. It is just about efficiency in content distribution. Regards, R. On Tue, Jun 19,

Re: [spring] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7855 (5384)

On 18 June 2018 at 15:19, Rob Shakir wrote: > iff is common language in most technical/academic documentation I believe. > Whilst I am sympathetic to wanting to ensure that RFCs are as easy to parse > as possible for as wide an audience as possible I think that we have to have > some level at

Re: [spring] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7855 (5384)

I concur with Rob. And here is a reference to the Merriam-Webster dictionary that defines the term. As opposed to some other abbreviations, it is, AFAIK, quite unambiguous. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email:

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

There’s no objection against policies installed at ingress interfaces to an SR domain. Rob correctly states, that the SR architecture does not require per path state at transit nodes. And that’s good and correct. I’d like to see the number of signaling protocols in the SR core network being

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi Stewart, Speaking as individual contributor, please see inline [Bruno] From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:19 PM On 01/06/2018 17:05, Rob Shakir wrote: The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

On 01/06/2018 17:05, Rob Shakir wrote: The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions called segments and without the need for per-path state information to be held at transit nodes. I am not sure