Hi co-chairs, We co-authors believe this revision (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-02) is ready for WG adoption. Would you please start an adoption poll on this doc?
Best regards, Xiaohu (on behalf of all co-authors) > -----Original Message----- > From: Xuxiaohu > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 11:59 AM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Request WG adoption polling//FW: [spring] The rationale of > draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip > > Hi co-chairs, > > We have addressed all comments received so far in the following revision > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-01). > Note > that how to dynamically obtain the encapsulation capabilities is defined in > separate docs (e.g., > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap-00) > > We co-authors believe the current version is ready for WG adoption. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu(on behalf of all co-authors) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert > Raszuk > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:29 PM > To: Xuxiaohu > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [spring] The rationale of > draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip > > Hi Xu, > > We discussed this work before, however I have a new question ... > > It is an informational draft so you relay on proper configuration of RS nodes > in > the islands. > > Note that today you may have out of the box SR node supporting IPv4, > IPv6 (say without SR) + MPLS. So you must select your operational default > encapsulation and very likely such encapsulation will differ per next SR > destination ! > > I therefor find it not really practical to recommend manual/i2rs/xml > configuration and choice of encapsulation on a per SR node basis. > > I would therefor advise if there would be architectural consensus to go > forward > with the proposed in the draft idea to turn it into standards track and add a > flag > and encap info in SR advertisement itself indicating that given SR node may be > reachable say via GRE, > L2TPv3 or VXLAN encaps. > > That way your objective is accomplished via full protocol automation with > minimal need for any per SR src/dst node manual config. > > Best, > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-00) > describes a use case about interconnecting spring islands over IP networks. > The > rationale for this draft is as follows: > > > > Suppose LSR A and LSR B are separated by an IP network. Assume LSR A > receives from LSR B a label binding L for a given FEC (e.g., one of LSR B's > loopback addresses) via T-LDP or L-BGP, when LSR A wants to forward a MPLS > packet targeted for that FEC, it could forward that MPLS packet through an > IP-based tunnel towards LSR B. In contrast, if LSR A receives the above label > binding originated by LSR B via IS-IS or OSPF, it could be looked as if this > label > binding was learnt from a remote BGP or LDP peer. As such, LSR A could forward > the MPLS packet targeted for that FEC over an IP-based tunnel towards LSR B as > well. > > > > In fact, one of the claimed advantages of IPv6-SR is that it doesn't > > require to > upgrade all routers in the networks. With the above approach, we can achieve > the same effect in the MPLS-SR. > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
