Re: [spring] [Idr] New draft for data center gateways

Robert, Comments inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:14 PM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: idr wg; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] [Idr] New draft for data center gateways Dear Authors, Question

Re: [spring] SID Conflict Resolution: A Simpler Proposal

I agree with Acee Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: I like the proposal below much better than keeping track of the overlapping and non-overlapping ranges and dynamically resolving conflicts as the routing state

Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi, This I completely agree with, however, given that we have had similar counters in LSRs since the advent of MPLS/RSVP-TE I am not sure this is a “complicated function”. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu Sent: Wednesday, November 15,

Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Himanshu, Good point. We also need to be able to turn on and off packet marking by the ingress routers. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:35 PM To: Mach Chen ; Zafar Ali

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Zafar, Comment inline. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:25 AM To: Xuxiaohu ; Greg Mirsky Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

<david.i.al...@ericsson.com>; John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed? Robert, Do you plan to post a draft that explains how this can be achieved without changing anything on the wire? Without

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

ShaoWen, We are not talking about per-flow counting but rather per SR Segment list counting. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ShaoWen Ma Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:43 PM To: Robert Raszuk Cc:

Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

Robert, We are more than open to aternatives. Yours Irrespectively, John From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:53 AM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: David Allan I <david.i.al...@ericsson.com>; m

Re: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Ruediger, There is also the possibility of using a GAL w/ a new fixed size GACH containing the SR Segment List Id. This is similar to Robert’s suggestion of using a VXLAN header. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ruediger.g...@telekom.de Sent:

Re: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; z...@cisco.com; rob...@raszuk.net; m...@ietf.org; Ext - ruediger.g...@telekom.de <ruediger.g...@telekom.de>; adr...@olddog.co.uk; Michael Gorokhovsky <m

Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

Robert, I think you’re right that ‘SR Path Id’ is the wrong term and that it should be ‘SR Segment List Id’. We developed this draft in response to requests from our customers that, as described in our draft, have an interface on a node in the interior of an SR network whose utilization is

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Sasha, We did not use the term SR-TE LSP in our draft and I think it is misleading. I suggested to Robert in another email that we use the term ‘SR Segment List’ since that is what the SR Architecture document describes. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org]

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi, We are dealing with an SR network in which the data plane is MPLS rather than IP. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:47 AM To: Jeff Tantsura ; Robert Raszuk

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi, Comments inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 1:12 AM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-sprin

Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

, 2017 8:44 AM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; m...@ietf.org; spring <spring@ietf.org>; David Allan I <david.i.al...@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measuremen

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Stewart, The intent is to have a general MPLS capability, as I think the draft mentions, and the draft is targeted at the MPLS WG. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:45 PM To: Mach Chen

Re: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

:26 PM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Ext - ruediger.g...@telekom.de <ruediger.g...@telekom.de>; adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; z...@cisco.com; rob...@raszuk.net; m...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] re

Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

Robert, Upon reflection, the same question can be asked of R4. Yours Irrespectively, John From: John E Drake Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:34 PM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; m...@ietf.org; spring <

Re: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

Dave, Comment inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Allan I Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:56 AM To: Mach Chen ; Greg Mirsky ; Alexander Vainshtein Cc:

Re: [spring] [mpls] draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip

I'm not aware of any IPR. Yours Irrespectively, John > -Original Message- > From: mpls On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 6:15 AM > To: m...@ietf.org > Cc: spring@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; draft-xu-mpls-sr-over...@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls]

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

Daniel, There work group adoption process started several months ago. We asked Loa to initiate the process and he asked four members of the MPLS review team to review the draft, which they subsequently did, with all four indicating that they thought the draft should be adopted. Then and only

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

Robert, Comments inline. Yours Irrespectively, John From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:13 PM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: James N Guichard <james.n.guich...@huawei.com>; Francois Clad

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

Jim, Excellent point. We thought a context label was crucial in order to achieve scalability (2**40) bits. A single 20 bit globally unique SFI identifier didn’t seem to be practical to us. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James N Guichard

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

Daniel, It has a multiplicity of issues, primarily wrt scalability and ease of configuration. Yours Irrespectively, John From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernier, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:54 AM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Robert

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

Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:38 PM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca <daniel.bern...@bell.ca>; mpls <m...@ietf.org>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; s...@ietf.org; James N Guichard <james.n.guich...@huawe

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

Robert, Comments inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:00 PM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca <daniel.bern...@bell.ca>; mpls &l

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

Robert, The point is to re-purpose existing MPLS hardware in the short-term to build service function forwarders. Yours Irrespectively, John From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:52 PM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.

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

Hi, I think there is a fundamental difference between the subject draft and draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01. Despite your co-author Wim’s assertions to the contrary [1], the latter draft is describing how to use segment routing rather than NSH for service function path traversal.

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

Wim, Comment inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) [mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:38 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org>; SPRING WG Lis

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

e to pure unicast networks. Thx, Robert. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:20 PM John E Drake mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>> wrote: Robert, I’m sorry for the confusion. My only point was that MVPN provides the reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of tunnel types

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi, I think Sasha has a valid point. Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever. Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: spring@ietf.org;

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

is, at best, a stretch.. Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:55 PM To: John E Drake Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org; draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

: Greg Mirsky Sent: 17 November 2019 13:14 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: John E Drake ; spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk ; (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org) Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft

Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

irsky Sent: 17 November 2019 11:39 To: John E Drake mailto:40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>> Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Alexander Vainshtein mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>; draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-voy

Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-spring-p2mp-transport-chain-01 Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 4:45 PM To: Rishabh Parekh Cc: SPRING WG ; Voyer, Daniel Subject: Re: [spring] SR replication

Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT

Gyan, You're most welcome. Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: Gyan Mishra Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 5:26 PM To: John E Drake Cc: Rishabh Parekh ; SPRING WG ; Voyer, Daniel Subject: Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT Thanks John!! Did a quick

Re: [spring] [Teas] More Discussion//RE: Re:Re: New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

Hi, Snipper, comments inline [JD1]. Yours Irrespectively, John 2. As mentioned several times during the discussion, this underlay construct has both the topology and resource attributes. With the term “resource group”, it is clear that it is a set of network resources, then how about the