For clarification:
Can I assume that we are talking about replication at ingress to a
series of unicast SR paths each to an installed multicast tree close to
egress?
- Stewart
On 10/06/2018 10:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hey Sasha,
100% agree with your last post. Very glad to see your support for
spray/fan-out or if you will
static MDTs to be in scope of SPRING.
Based on number of WG members input expressed both at the meeting and
on the list I hope
proposed SPRING charter will be updated soon to reflect that.
Cheers,
R.
PS. Btw - I am also ok that ingress replication is not relevant to
SPRING as it essentially happens at the
ingress to the domain.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Robert,
First of all, I did not say that your quote was inaccurate. I
apologize for possible misperception.
Second, I believe that spray or fan-out (meaning support of
externally computed static MDTs) in SR-MPLS is a relevant focus
area for the future WG work. Of course the solution must be
aligned with the SPRING and MPLS architecture, and this imposes
additional restrictions on how such a solution would look.
Last but not least, I have differentiated (from my first email on
this thread) */ingress replication/* *in SR* from the more generic
*multicast support *in SR:
-The latter is quite acceptable to me
-The former, IMHO, should be left out of scope.
Hope this helps to clarify my position.
Regards, and, again, apologies for possible misinterpretation.
Sasha
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
