Adrian see my other comments on the mailing list which seem to clarify some of
the ctxt I am taking about
On 14/08/2017, 03:59, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
Hi Wim,
> The draft only defines procedures for SRoIP E2E, why don’t we envision
SRoIP to
> Interwork with native MPLS-SR.
Hi Wim,
> The draft only defines procedures for SRoIP E2E, why don’t we envision SRoIP
> to
> Interwork with native MPLS-SR.
:
> You could envision certain segments to do SRoIP and other segments to have
> native MPLS-SR capability.
Yes, the "mixed mode" is both interesting and useful.
In fact,
ring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim
(Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:55 PM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
The draft onl
: adr...@olddog.co.uk; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
The draft only defines procedures for SRoIP E2E, why don’t we envision SRoIP to
Interwork with native MPLS-SR.
What I mean is when using the SRoIP procedures the
The draft only defines procedures for SRoIP E2E, why don’t we envision SRoIP to
Interwork with native MPLS-SR.
What I mean is when using the SRoIP procedures the draft uses SRoIP at every
hop which is SR capable.
You could envision certain segments to do SRoIP and other segments to have
native M
.org>
主题： [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
时间： 2017-08-12 02:47:40
Hi all,
SPRING didn't meet in Prague so I presented this work in MPLS. Bruno suggested
that maybe SPRING would be a better venue.
I'm not sure about that, although I do
徐小虎
M：+86-13910161692
E：xuxia...@huawei.com<mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>
产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部
发件人： Adrian Farrel
收件人： spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
主题： [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
时间： 2
Hi all,
SPRING didn't meet in Prague so I presented this work in MPLS. Bruno suggested
that maybe SPRING would be a better venue.
I'm not sure about that, although I do think both WGs should chat about the
ideas.
The essence of this work is nothing more that MPLS-SR encapsulated in UDP per
RFC 7
