+1 to traffic steering and OAM. I'd like to see operational statistics/traffic accounting get some much deserved attention(in the context of SRTE policies and other SR paths)
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:23 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I totally agree with Mach, Jeff and others that there is work to be done > in OAM as there are more requirements to use SR for both existing and > emerging applications. > > > > SR-TE is another important area. The current SR-TE mainly focuses on > steering traffic to particular SR paths, while TE can have a broader scope > than that, for example, how to do resource partitioning (reservation) with > SR needs to be discussed. Actually this is already mentioned in the > current charter: > > > > o Some types of network virtualization, including multi- > topology networks and the partitioning of network > resources for VPNs > > > > I’d agree with Dan that SR-TE is different from RSVP-TE, while as Himanshu > said, it could be beneficial to leverage the TE expertise from TEAS. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* spring [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Voyer, > Daniel > *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2018 11:42 AM > *To:* Shah, Himanshu; Jeff Tantsura; Bernier, Daniel; > [email protected]; [email protected] > > > *Cc:* Alvaro Retana (aretana); [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: SPRING - rechartering > discussion > > > > [DV] see inlines > > > > *From: *spring <[email protected]> on behalf of "Shah, Himanshu" < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 9:23 PM > *To: *Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, Daniel Bernier < > [email protected]>, Bruno Decraene <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: SPRING - rechartering > discussion > > > > Agree with Jeff, without harping on all the good reasons already stated > for SPRING WG charter extensions, > > I would think that it would be beneficial to leverage TE expertise from > TEAS WG to > > progress SR-TE there for a cohesive, uniform solution for all tunneling > schemes. > > > > [DV] 1- SRTE is NOT a tunnel. Labels are signals straight in the IGP, as > known. This is why the word “policy” was introduce with SRTE – “SRTE > Policy”. > > [DV] 2- According to TEAS WG charter - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/about/: > > 1. Definition of additional abstract service, link, and path > properties such as jitter, delay, and diversity. Extensions > to IGPs to advertise these properties, and > *extensions to RSVP-TE *to request and to accumulate these properties. > > > > [DV] 3- also notice in the SPRING Charter - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/: > > o Some types of network virtualization, including multi- > topology networks and the partitioning of network > resources for VPNs > o Network path and node protection such as fast re-route > o Network programmability > o New OAM techniques > o Simplification and reduction of network signalling > components > o Load balancing and *traffic engineering* > > [DV] Hence I believe “SRTE policy” is a key component of the SR > Architecture and should pursued as part as the Architecture definition > milestone of the SPRING WG. > > > > Dan > > > > IMHO.. > > > > *Thanks,* > > *Himanshu* > > *From: *spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 3:26 PM > *To: *"Bernier, Daniel" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *[**EXTERNAL**] Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm not going to repeat all the valid reasons to continue mentioned > beforehand. > > There's definitely work to be done in architecture and O&M areas as well > as co-ordination of various activities across IETF. > > > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > On 3/18/18, 13:23, "spring on behalf of Bernier, Daniel" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > service discovery, inter-domain chaining policies, parallelism versus > sequential chaining, various control-plane implementations, etc. > > > > Secondly, since there is a tight relation to SR chaining and TE > policies, I believe there will is a lot of opportunities related to Path > Awareness which is currently running in IRTF. Opportunities like, intent > translation to SR policies, Policy requests or announcements between > domains and host (probably app) level TE policy requests (e.g. how can an > app receive a proper policy based on its requirements) ? > > > > My humble operator 0.02 cents. > > > > Daniel Bernier | Bell Canada > > ________________________________________ > > From: spring <[email protected]> on behalf of > [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 11:59 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Alvaro Retana (aretana); [email protected] > > Subject: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion > > > > Hello WG, > > > > now that nearly all the core documents are in the hands of IESG or > beyond, we think it is time to (re)discuss rechartering. > > We brought up that question few meetings ago and the feedback, at > that time, was that the WG at least needs to be maintained to discuss the > extensions following deployment feedback. > > > > But we need also identify technical directions. > > > > In order to initiate the discussion we are proposing some high level > items but we'd like to make clear a few points before: > > * these are only proposals; what might end-up as the next steps for > SPRING will be what the WG is willing to work on (which includes having > cycles for that). > > * what the WG might be rechartered to do is not necessarily limited > to that; so other proposals are welcome. > > > > So, we thought of the following: > > > > * general architectural work / extensions > > there are still few items on our plate and we expect that some might > need to be progressed, and we should maybe allow for others to come. > > > > * service chaining > > last meeting there were proposals discussed in SPRING to realize some > form of service chaining. any work in that space would require close > coordination with SFC and maybe other WG. > > > > * yang > > we are a bit behind here and there is definitely work to do. > > > > > > So please comment on these and propose additional items. > > > > We'll likely have a dedicated slot in London but we'd like to progress > before that. > > > > Thank you, > > --Martin, Rob, Bruno > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:25 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Alvaro Retana (aretana) > > > Subject: Next steps for SPRING? > > > > > > WG, > > > > > > in the session we have opened the discussion on the future of the > WG, > > > putting all options on the table (recharter/close/sleep). > > > As a foreword, we still have few WG Documents that we need to -and > will- > > > push towards IESG (and a greater number that need to reach RFC > status), > > > but with those we'll have reached most if not all of our milestones, > > > thus the question on what's next. > > > > > > So, we think we have heard during the session that closing wasn't > > > desired and one reason for that is to have a home to share and > discuss > > > deployment considerations as the technology gets deployed. > > > There are also a few individual documents knocking at the door, and > some > > > of them were presented during the session. > > > > > > To reach out to everyone, we are thus asking the question on the > list. > > > We would like to hear from you all what the working group should be > > > focussing on. > > > > > > Note, the expectation is that future items should not be use-cases > but > > > rather be technology extensions/evolutions. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > Martin & Bruno > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > privileged information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- -- Alex Alex Bogdanov | Strategic NetEng | bogdanov@ <[email protected]> | Cell: 650-314-8196
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
