Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt

uesday, October 24, 2017 1:40 PM To: Bernier, Daniel; Francois Clad (fclad); spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt Hi Daniel, Thank you for taking the microphone. Perhaps my question wasn’t clear – I’m comp

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining-00.txt

Hi Jeff, Do you mind if I take the microphone on this one? The expired draft-homma (ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-homma-sfc-forwarding-methods-analysis-05#page-23 ) on SFC forwarding methods detailed pretty well the various options for forwarding in the context of service chaining

Re: [spring] Request WG adoption for draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01

Hello SPRING chairs, When do you think this clarification of the charter might have progressed enough to provide an update on the WG adoption of draft-xuclad-spriong-sr-service-chaining ? Knowing that MPLS WG and SPRING WG chairs have agreed that draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi Rob, A bit late but +1 to Zafar's and Linda's comments on adding overlay/app interaction with underlay in the WG charter. I presented at last IETF in PANRG (ref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-panrg-service-aware-networking-using-segment-routing-00) on

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

Support WG adoption Also not aware of any IPR Daniel Bernier On 2018-05-16, 11:20 AM, "spring on behalf of Rob Shakir" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of ro...@google.com> wrote: Hi SPRING WG, This email initiates a two week call for working group adoption

Re: [spring] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

is in the use of 2 labels (+entropy) to represent the SPI/SI. DB> I personally thing draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining should progress since it is defining ways to define a chain not as a transport agnostic overlay but integrated within the forwarding plane described as a TE policy.

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi John, Don't we already have draft-fm-bess-service-chaining-01 to perform service chains with existing MPLS implementations ? Thanks,​ Daniel Bernier From: spring on

Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

Hi, I echo the need to continue the SPRING work on service-chaining. There is a growing interest to have a mechanism that operates at the forwarding plane level using source routing as an alternative to a dedicated service overlay. This will surely generate other related work such as automated

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

​Hi Med, Please see inline Cheers Daniel Bernier From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:06 AM To: Bernier, Daniel Cc: mpls; SPRING WG List; b...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

+1 to Jim and Avinash Same challenge on our side. Our network is built upon a MPLS data plane. My current "network appliances" are connected to MPLS devices and service instantiation done through static pseudowires. It will be easier for me to introduce SRTE policy capabilities through

Re: [spring] Last Call: (Segment Routing with MPLS data plane) to Proposed Standard

+1 Dan B On 2019-02-26, 4:20 PM, "spring on behalf of Adrian Farrel" wrote: This draft has been around the block a bit, but certainly needs to progress because a lot of other things are dependent on it. Fortunately after plenty of review and updates (thanks to the authors),

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

As a contributor I am not aware of any IPR Thanks, Dan Bernier On 2019-03-13, 2:50 PM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>> wrote: Hi authors, SPRING WG, In parallel to the call for adoption for

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

Support Dan Bernier | Bell Canada On 2019-03-13, 2:49 PM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: Hi SPRING WG, This email initiates

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call: draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming

Hi As co-author I support adoption of this draft Daniel Bernier On 2019-06-27, 2:14 AM, "spring on behalf of Rob Shakir" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of robjs=40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: Hi SPRING WG, This email initiates a two

Re: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr

?Hi Rob, Support WG adoption and not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Thanks, Daniel Bernier | Bell Canada From: spring on behalf of Rob Shakir Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:13 AM To: draft-guichard-spring-nsh...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List Subject:

Re: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming

Hi Rob I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR ? Cheers Daniel Bernier | Bell Canada From: Rob Shakir Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:13 AM To: draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programm...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT]IPR Poll:

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

+1 The ability of using a single SRH to convey behaviour information wether they are per-segment or per-path has proven to be very simple and quick to define in various data plane targets. At first analysis, trying to replicate with CRH + DOH variants, the logic required for service

Re: [spring] Per segment service instructions

Hi Ron, If PSSI provide non-routing services such as SE1 from Robert’s example which offers DPI, FW and Packet Replication then, I need a domain-wide PSSI defining DPI + FW + Sampling but if somewhere else in my network I just need FW, then I need another domain-wide PSSI for only FW. In that

Re: [spring] Question about IPv6 EH-insertion in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Fernando, Let’s say I have a native IPv6 application flow to which I want to apply a service policy (i.e. chain of functions), carry metadata through TLVs or perform a very simplistic filtering action via the tag field. All of which are real use cases by the way. Should I not leverage

Re: [spring] Per segment service instructions

pring-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Bernier, Daniel" mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>> Date: Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 1:03 AM To: Ron Bonica mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>, Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Cc: SPRING WG mailto:spring@ietf.or

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

- END.T Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Bernier, Daniel Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:26 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Mark Smith Cc: Rob Shakir ; SPRING WG ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Robert Raszuk ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; Tarek Saad Subject: RE: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

gh the PSSI or PPSI Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Bernier, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:41 PM To: xie...@chinatelecom.cn; List Cc: Rob Shakir ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Ta

Re: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

+1 This is what we did on our multi-cloud trials. Encap with Binding SID to avoid inter-domain mapping + I don’t need to have some sort of inter-domain alignment of PSSIs Dan On 2019-09-19, 11:18 AM, "spring on behalf of SING Team" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of

Re: [spring] A note on CRH and on going testing

Or PPSIs On 2019-09-19, 11:36 AM, "spring on behalf of Bernier, Daniel" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of daniel.bern...@bell.ca<mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>> wrote: +1 This is what we did on our multi-cloud trials. Encap with Binding SID to avoid inter-do

Re: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？

out what to apply based on source/dest PPSIs plus + the FIB/SFIB mapping. Cheers, Dan From: Ron Bonica Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 5:46 PM To: Bernier, Daniel; Joel M. Halpern Cc: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT]RE: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？ Daniel

Re: [spring] IPR poll for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi As a contributor, I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR that related to this document. Thanks, Dan B On 2019-12-05, 11:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, In parallel to the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming, we

Re: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？

. And since these PSSIs are not all carried from source, this requires state. From: Joel M. Halpern Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 3:50 PM To: Bernier, Daniel Cc: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？ SR is Stateless in the sense

Re: [spring] SR-MPLS over IPv6？

SID list. We should see the important part of binding SID in inter-domain routing, since it hides the details of intra-domain. Security and Privacy are always important. Since the EH insertion related text will be removed from SRv6 NP draft, I don’t think anyone will still say we don’t need bin

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

+1 on my side Daniel Bernier From: spring on behalf of Lizhenbin Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 6:54 AM To: "bruno.decra...@orange.com" , 'SPRING WG List' Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [spring] Request to close the LC and

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call

?Support Daniel Bernier Bell Canada From: spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:53 AM To: SPRING WG Subject: [EXT][spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call Hi SPRING WG,

Re: [spring] Leadership change

Late reply but nonetheless Thanks Rob and congratulations Joel and Jim Daniel Bernier On 2020-06-14, 4:25 PM, "spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: WG, Rob had decided to step down as chair some time ago. There hasn't been any formal communication on that so I'd like,

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

I support Dan Bernier On 2020-06-22, 10:46 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, Authors of draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment [1] have asked for WG adoption. Please indicate your support, comments, or objection, for adopting this

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hello, I am not aware of any IPR and support the WGLC Dan B From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy Dear WG: This email

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Support adoption of both documents Dan B From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com" Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 9:12 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement -

Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Hi, Similar to my comment on the chat during SPRING last Monday. The mailing list has been flooded of opinions, exchanges, technical arguments on all variations, to the extent that it triggered the WG to initiate that DT effort to help get better clarity. I really do think that it would be

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi, After re-reading the draft I strongly support its adoption. 1. Following the Design Team work stream, CSID proves conformant and optimal. 2. It allows for the flexibility of selecting the SRv6 data plane flavor (compressed or not) without changes to the architecture. 3. Has proven

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi Support the adoption to WG Daniel Bernier On 2023-05-16, 10:04 AM, "spring on behalf of IETF Secretariat" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org > wrote: The SPRING WG has placed

Re: [spring] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Hi, I support this document, having an already working implementation of it in production https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-15#section-2.11 Regards, Daniel Bernier From: spring on behalf of Joel