Hi Haibo,
Thanks for your feedback and confirmation. Indeed the “alternate steering
mechanism” is better. Will push this change in the next revision.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Sent: 28 September 2021 15:31
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; b...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6
Hi Mark,
The draft talks about "destination of the policy" as in the tail-end node of
the SR Policy. It does not talk about the destination IP address in the packet.
You can consider this as a "default policy" on similar lines as a default route.
Please see the section below which will cover on
previously that indicated an issue because someone was
using these zero addresses as destination IP in the packets. That would be an
incorrect analogy since there is no such proposal in this document.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Mark Smith
Sent: 16 December 2019 12:27
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: SPRING
Hi Nat,
The MSD framework enables us to define more/new MSD types. If there is a real
use-case and requirement (as you express) and the necessary MSD type(s) can be
formally defined then perhaps the WG can evaluate it.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of Nat Kao
Sent: 17 December 2019 17:
Support the early allocation.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: 19 December 2019 22:24
To: SPRING WG
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early
Allocation Call
Hi SPRING WG,
This begins a 2 week Early Allocation call f
Hi Spring WG colleagues,
I am really concerned at the attempts made to drag this WGLC out further. Let
me summarize why.
1. The only sticking point that I am aware of (since I’ve been following all
discussions closely) is about the claim being made by some members that PSP
violates RFC8200
Hi Brian,
It is likely that things are not clear if one were to just try to read the text
around just the specific section of the draft which covers PSP. The document
does needs prior understanding of the SR Architecture RFC8402 and SRH draft in
addition to reading of the entire network progr
Hi Ted,
I’ve tried to clarify Brian’s point :
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/rb23KclF_SKqRsnjvm82192vBZ8/
The draft under WGLC review in Spring WG already has pointers to all those
drafts that I’ve mentioned.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: 28 February 202
Hi Mark,
Just to clarify, the SRv6 control plane is not being extended beyond the SRv6
data plane. Let me explain.
The legacy egress PE which does not have SRH processing capabilities is still
instantiating the SRv6 End.DT/DX SID [ref net-pgm draft sec 4.4-8] in its FIB.
That is still SRv6. No
Hi John,
Please check inline below.
From: spring On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: 28 February 2020 02:41
To: SPRING WG ; 6man WG
Cc: Ron Bonica ; daniel.vo...@bell.ca
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
I have an additional observation, or questi
Hi Chris,
I agree with Peter and I would suggest to drop LSR since this is not a protocol
specific thing.
I believe the text in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming clears says
what locator block and locator node are. What more details do you think are
required?
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Lsr
wait for him to clarify.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Lsr On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: 28 February 2020 14:34
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Chris Bowers
Cc: l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List ;
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr
March 2020 23:39
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;
l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List ;
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Bruno Decraene
Subject: Re: [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network
Hi Joel,
I would like to echo the arguments that Bruno has made (and quote part of it)
in his summary and then previously on this thread.
QOUTE
The point was related to the usefulness of the optional feature, which has been
challenged.
I was trying to say the required argumentation to dec
ust
dismissing them without sharing your views?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 04 March 2020 13:16
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-pro
s.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-05#section-4.2
-Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern Direct
Sent: 04 March 2020 13:26
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-
e could just agree to disagree.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 04 March 2020 14:04
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Given that we are talking about
Hi Sasha,
There is the signalling from the "tail-end node" in SRv6 as well. Perhaps you
missed
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06#section-4.4 ?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 04 March 2020 15:09
To:
Hi Sasha,
Please check inline below.
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 04 March 2020 15:41
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux ; Joel M.
Halpern ; Andrew G. Malis
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Ketan,
Lots of thanks
Hi Robert,
Please check inline below.
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: 04 March 2020 16:07
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Ketan,
Let's assume following sce
Hi Jinmei,
Please check inline below.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of
Sent: 05 March 2020 05:15
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; Bob Hinden ; Robert
Raszuk
Subject: Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and m
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your attempt at summarizing one of the use-cases of PSP which has
been actively discussed/debated on the list. I see that you are suggesting to
do something like a use-case review for it. It might be a useful discussion for
the WG, but I am sure you are not suggesting any as
Hi Chris,
Dropping the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-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; SPRING WG
Hi Sasha,
In SR-MPLS, we have the inner VPN label and then we can have the BSID label.
Similarly for SRv6, we have the VPN SID (e.g. End.DT4) and the BSID (i.e.
End.B6.Encaps).
I hope that clarifies.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 12 March 2020 16:03
To: P
Hi Andrew,
I believe the /20 example was what Softbank seems to be using for their (very
large?) network and use-cases. It’s an example of how much IPv6 space they’ve
got from ARIN. A millionth of that for SRv6 indicates a /40 (if I’ve got my
maths right). Now, I don’t claim to be aware of Soft
owers ; l...@ietf.org; Peter Psenak
(ppsenak) ; Bruno Decraene
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes:
> [KT] The behaviors currently l
nks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 17:23
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi,
> I believe the /20 exa
-Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 13 February 2020 23:38
To: Jeffrey Haas ;
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-pol...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy Policy Name Sub-TLV
considerations
Hi Jeff,
I agree with you about the limi
ation.
Please check further inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 18:26
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
preclude a use-case for it in IGPs themselves in the future.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Chris Bowers
Sent: 12 March 2020 20:29
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List ; Bruno Decraene
Subject: Re: [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in
Hi Sander,
Please check inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 19:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Gyan,
To add to what Peter has clarified, SR Policy architecture also supports SRv6
(as you've pointed out in the references) - loose and strict paths as well as
steering for colored BGP routes.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: 31 March
Hello,
I have a few questions for the authors of this draft and some discussion points
for the WG.
1. What is precisely the definition of this "path MTU" for an SR Policy? I
am guessing that it includes all the labels/SIDs that are used for the SR path?
2. While https://tools.ietf.org/ht
Hi Cheng,
Please check inline below.
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 08 April 2020 14:36
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Susan Hares
; 'IDR List'
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2
Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
Hi Ke
encodings. I
would suggest to move the specification of SR Policy Path MTU into a new draft
positioned in the Spring WG. That IMHO would be the right way to progress this
work.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 09 April 2020 16:27
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Susan Hares
; '
Hi Cheng,
I assume you are recommending the use of Route Origin Extended Community
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4360#section-5) for conveying the "Originator"
when the SR Policy update is propagated over eBGP sessions via other eBGP/iBGP
sessions instead of direct peering with the headend.
Hi Ron,
You still do not name segment types in this version of the draft.
*You called them "loose" and "strict" in your email [1].
*In previous versions you called them "Prefix SID" and "Adjacency" [2]
and in your ISIS draft [3].
It seems clear to anyone that knows and unde
for the
“Originator” field for some deployment design. I haven’t seen a
response/clarification from him as yet, and so perhaps I misunderstood him in
which case we are ok here.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: 30 April 2020 14:46
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li
Hello Spring WG,
You might be very interested in this ongoing WG adoption poll for the CRH
proposal (what was previously introduced in Spring as part of the SRm6
proposal).
The authors are now claiming that theirs is a new IPv6 source routing proposal
that is unrelated to work/charter of Sprin
Hi Ron,
It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing
solution.
"It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6
specifications."
The RH work done in 6man (not ipng or ipv6) has been based on requirements from
other WGs where those solutions
Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica
; Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Zafar Ali (zali)
; Robert Raszuk
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
...> It is the 6man charter tha
of the Routing area in this case) for a solution and does not
provide the necessary reference for 6man to work on.
Why the rush?
I close my arguments.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Bob Hinden
Sent: 22 May 2020 09:03
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Bob Hinden ; Brian
mance/fuel efficiency parameters required, etc.) before we start
designing tyres for it.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 22 May 2020 10:02
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring]
I am thinking that the operators would be looking for the car and not the tyre?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 22 May 2020 10:55
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spr
essage-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 22 May 2020 20:06
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
None of those documents drive the need for SRv6.Even
likar (ketant)
Cc: Joel M. Halpern ; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:21 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I'll point you to
ca-6man-comp-rtg-hdr?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: 25 May 2020 09:03
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
so should be considered as a significant change to IPv6.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Ron Bonica
mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Sent: 25 May 2020 21:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>; Joel
M. Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalper
Sometimes a known devil is better than an unknown one.
I think we need to be very careful in considering the introduction of a new
label/ID mapping technology into IPv6 Routing and it's ramifications.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01#section-5.1
The maxim
before the horse in this case.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: 28 May 2020 20:27
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: 6man <6...@ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern ; Ron Bonica
; rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
8 May 2020 20:41
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Ketan,
Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR.. In Section 3.1 of RFC
79
e are considering a document for adoption and it is difficult to put
together all the bits and pieces spread over hundreds of emails.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: 28 May 2020 20:43
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Erik Kline
; Zafar Ali (zali)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org&
-segment-routing-policy-07
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:25 AM Chengli (Cheng Li)
mailto:c...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Ketan,
Sorry for my delay, I saw the update, and it has addressed my comments, many
thanks.
Best,
Cheng
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
[mailto:ket...@cisco.com<mailto:ket...@
Thanks Rob for your help and support. Thanks as well to Bruno for his continued
help.
Welcome Joel and Jim in your new roles.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: 15 June 2020 01:55
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; int-...@ietf.org; br
I support the adoption of this document and would be willing to work on its
progression through Spring WG as well it's related protocol extensions in other
routing WGs.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: 22 June 2020 20:16
To: sp
Hi All,
We've just posted an update for the draft with the following changes:
- Clarification regarding signalling of SR Policy Name via protocols
- Updated security considerations section
- Updated text for SRv6 with inclusion of behaviour to align with
draft-ietf-spring-network-programming
- U
Hi All,
I support the WG adoption of this important Yang model for SR Policy. It is one
of the WG milestones and therefore something that the WG has already resolved
to work upon. The proposal in the draft itself is well advanced and provides a
very good version for the WG to accomplish this wo
Hi All,
I support the adoption of this document by the WG. The Yang model for SRv6 is
something that the WG needs to work on as a deliverable alongside all the
ongoing SRv6 work. The proposal in the draft aligns with the
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and thus provides a good base f
Hi All,
This document seems to talk of "resource group" SIDs that is something
interesting - specifically for SR-MPLS (I don't see the same relevance for
SRv6).
I support the adoption of (what is coming across to me as) this concept of a
new "resource group" scope for SR SIDs as a work ite
Hi Zhenqiang Li,
Thanks for you review and sharing your comments. Please check inline below.
From: li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
Sent: 05 August 2020 14:03
To: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Subject: Comments on SR policy
Dear authors and all,
Please consider the follow
Hi All,
I would like to share a different perspective on this.
First, thanks to Joel for bringing up the discussion. Clearly we need a
well-defined applicability statement for determining applicability of
protection for segment used in an SR Policy. Some of this is captured in [1].
This is abo
Hi All,
I believe this topic is relevant and something for the WG to adopt and work on.
I have some concerns though on it's applicability and more specifically it's
implications on existing deployments/use-cases. I've share the same on the
thread started by Joel on this specific aspect [1]. Som
about Adj-SIDs.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 14 August 2020 18:24
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern
; Alexander Vainshtein ;
Shraddha Hegde ; ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com
; Robert Raszuk
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Spring protection
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Shraddha Hegde
; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ;
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Gulko, Arkadiy (Refinitiv)
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08 (OSPFv2 flex
algo)
Note : Discussion is not about FAPM.
For flex algorithm
refix SID.
Thus, we cannot assume that when PHP is used, then the SID is only associated
with a topological instruction.
Hope that clarifies?
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 14 August 2020 20:24
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel M. Halpern
; Shraddha Hegde ;
ext-andre
< also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs >
Hi Thomas/All,
I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective.
What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was
signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS - what matters and is
mo
2020 09:40
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; han...@gredler.at
Cc: l...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Ketan,
Thank you very much for the review and feedback.
* What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR
Hi Thomas,
Please check inline below.
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: 15 August 2020 11:31
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; han...@gredler.at
Cc: l...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Ketan,
* This helps
Hi Zhenqiang Li,
Please check inline below.
From: li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
Sent: 18 August 2020 06:42
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; spring@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Subject: Re: RE: Comments on SR policy
Hello Ketan,
Thank you for your response.
For question No
stency between forwarding and control plane to determine
which protocol/label is being used and lot's more details.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: 18 August 2020 18:28
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; han...@gredler.at
Cc: l...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Hi Rajesh,
Please check inline below.
From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M
Sent: 27 August 2020 12:26
To: gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ;
rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; zhuangshun...@huawei.com;
jorge.raba...@nokia.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring
Hi Martin,
I share your position.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Horneffer
Sent: 27 August 2020 16:05
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question be
Hi PSF and Cheng,
Please check inline below.
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 07 September 2020 09:49
To: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03
Hi PSF and Ketan,
IMHO, the SRv6
Sure. We can make this editorial change on the next update.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 09 September 2020 13:01
To: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Re:[spring] [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext
Hello All,
We have just posted an update for the draft and following is the summary of
changes:
1) Introduction of the Composite Candidate Path construct to address a pending
comment from the WG (Ref :
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fEqE5TOwdh2vEyFm_MEjiXyP2ws/ and
https://maila
Hello All,
I support the adoption of this work for performance monitoring in SR networks
that leverages TWAMP.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: 22 October 2020 18:22
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption C
Hello All,
I support the adoption of this work for performance monitoring in SR networks
that leverages STAMP encoding.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: 22 October 2020 18:22
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG A
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your comments and it was indeed the motivation for this solution for
the use-case brought forward.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 06 November 2020 00:45
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re
Hi Pavan,
Please check inline below.
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 10 November 2020 00:08
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt
Ketan,
Much Thanks for taking a stab at addressing the composite
Hi Pavan,
Please check inline below.
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 11 November 2020 00:26
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09.txt
Ketan, Hi!
Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB).
Regards
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your inputs and feedback. Please check inline below.
From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 12 November 2020 04:46
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
steering
mechanisms and how and where to use them in their networks.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 13 November 2020 04:42
To: Tarek Saad ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring
Hi Giuseppe,
First of all, thanks for making the updates to the document to clarify the
objective and applicability of IFIT and this draft extensions specifically to
the SR Policy signalled by BGP. A good part of the puzzle is at least clearer
to me now.
Sec 3 says (and I am trying to paraphra
cola
Sent: 16 November 2020 12:42
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Susan Hares
; i...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for
draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Hi Ketan,
Thanks a lot for your revision.
My answers inline tagged as [GF
Hello All,
We had the discussion, both on the list before the IETF 109 as well as during
the WG session at IETF 109, regarding some sort of an allocation or reservation
of a block/range of color values on the routers. This range may be for either
local use on the routers (i.e. not used for stee
Hi Sasha,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review, your comments/feedback and for taking
time for discussions with the co-authors for their resolution.
We’ve just posted an update of the draft to address your comments based on our
discussions :
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-b
document
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 10 March 2021 16:15
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org; b...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw) ; Zafar Ali (zali)
; rtg-...@ietf.org;
Subject: RE: RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf
Hi Sasha,
Indeed your version is better and we’ll put that in on the next draft update.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 10 March 2021 19:40
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org; b...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw
Hello,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this document other than the ones that
have been already disclosed.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: 11 April 2021 16:04
To: SPRING WG
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-ro
Hi Pablo,
Thank for your review and we've just posted an update that addresses the IANA
changes pointed out by you.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-10.txt
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: 27 April 2021 18:06
To:
Hello All,
This is mainly a refresh but also fixes editorial nits, updates references and
fixes a minor correction in the IANA section.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 28 April 2021 10:30
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@iet
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your review and feedback.
Did you imply that we add an implementation status section in the draft? Or are
you suggesting that the chairs poll for implementation and deployment status? I
ask because the Implementation Status section is generally removed before
publication a
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your review and comments.
We can update that text to clarify as below:
When BGP SR Policy is the Protocol-Origin, the BGP process receiving the route
provides the distinguisher (refer to Section 2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]) as the discriminator.
I’ll
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your detail review and great comments/feedback.
Please check inline bellow.
From: spring On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 29 April 2021 11:51
To: James Guichard
Cc: spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-polic
Hi Dhruv,
Please check inline below.
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 29 April 2021 15:46
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: James Guichard ; spring@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for the discussion. Sniping to
Hi Satoru-san,
Thanks for your review and comment.
I believe your point is to also cover SRv6 BSID and to that I would propose the
following text :
When the active candidate path has a specified BSID, the SR Policy uses that
BSID if this value (label in MPLS, IPv6 address in SRv6) is available
Hi Dhruv,
Please check inline below.
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 30 April 2021 11:43
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: James Guichard ; spring@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Hi Ketan
Thanks for handling the comments. Just
comments along with others received during this WGLC.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: 30 April 2021 13:01
To: Dhruv Dhody
Cc: James Guichard ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
; spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Dear
: 30 April 2021 11:43
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>
Cc: James Guichard
mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>>;
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>;
spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf
Hi All,
This version includes the updates for the WGLC comments as discussed on the
list.
Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 30 April 2021 19:25
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spr
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
