Martin, The proposed SPRING charter has: o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence..
We think it should be: o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS and between SR and existing networks routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence.. Because the term “routing solutions” is ambiguous and can mean different things to different people. It is very likely that flows might traverse some existing networks (like IPv4) before reaching SR domain. After all, it is not likely to have all network to be SR from Day 1. Bruno said “existing networks” vs “existing routing solutions” are equally good, and the charter wording is now at your hand. We hope you can change the wording. Thank you very much. Linda Dunbar From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 2:40 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Linda, Thanks for your review of the charter. > From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email protected]] > IMHO, “Interworking between SR and Legacy Networks” is more appropriate than > “Interworking between SR and existing routing solutions” because > “Interworking SR with existing routing solutions” can imply needing changes > to the “existing routing solutions”. I’d favor “existing” for the following reasons: - I’m not sure that Legacy is a well-defined term, nor that it is a binary condition - I’d rather avoid a discussion about a technology been legacy. IMO, SR-LDP interwork is useful to incrementally deploy SR in existing LDP networks. And I’m happy to avoid discussionss about LDP been legacy or not. - In the end, the goal is to introduce SR in existing networks (in addition to Greenfield deployments) - I think that’s the option to modify existing routing solutions is a feature rather than a bug. If existing routing solutions may be modified, and if this is the easier/best path, I don’t think we should rule it out. > How about “Interworking SR with existing networks”? Regarding: “existing networks” vs “existing routing solutions” Both equally works for me. As the charter has now been sent to IESG, this is currently in Martin’s hand. Thanks, --Bruno From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 5:26 PM To: Jeff Tantsura; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Cc: SPRING WG List Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter How about “Interworking SR with existing networks”? Linda From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 10:20 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Linda, “Legacy Networks” is a derogatory term used by OF bigots to call anything, that’s distributed ☺ There’s nothing wrong with changing and evolving existing networking to be more programmable and flexible, changes are welcome. I don’t think we should call existing networking – “Legacy”. Cheers, Jeff From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:05 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Bruno, IMHO, “Interworking between SR and Legacy Networks” is more appropriate than “Interworking between SR and existing routing solutions” because “Interworking SR with existing routing solutions” can imply needing changes to the “existing routing solutions”. Linda From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:56 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Linda, Thanks for the feedback. Please see inline [Bruno] From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 6:18 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; SPRING WG List Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Bruno, Many thanks for the updated charter. All look good except one minor wording change for the bullet: You have: o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence.. We think it should be: o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS/LegacyNetwork and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence.. Because it is very likely that flows might traverse some segment of legacy network (like IPv4) before reaching SRv6 domain. After all, it is not like to expect all network to be IPv6 from Day 1. [Bruno] I though this point would be covered by Inter-working […] between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence Am I missing something? Or would you have something specific in mind? --Bruno Sincerely hope you can add those minor wording to the bullet. Linda Dunbar From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:52 AM To: SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Hi SPRING, Following the discussion on the mailing list, please find below the updated text. The plan is to send it to Martin end of this week. The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new applications, and specify extensions of Segment Routing technologies. The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions called segments and without the need for per-path state information to be held at transit nodes. Full explicit control (through loose or strict path specification) can be achieved in a network comprising only SPRING nodes, however SPRING nodes must inter-operate through loose routing in existing networks and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for other network applications. The scope of the SPRING WG work includes both single Autonomous System (AS) and multi-AS environments. Segment Routing operates within a trusted domain; as described in the architecture, a node imposing a segment list is assumed to be allowed to do so. Nonetheless, the SPRING WG must strive to identify and address security considerations brought up by the technologies it defines. The technologies SPRING WG defines may be applicable to both centralised and distributed path computation. SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any modification of -or extension to- existing architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, data plane, or control or management plane protocol being modified and in coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors. The SPRING WG will manage its specific work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director. The work-items of the SPRING WG include functional specifications for: o Segment Routing policies and the associated steering, signalling and traffic engineering mechanisms. o Source-routed stateless service chaining using SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes. o SRv6 network programming for the underlay networks and overlay services, and including data plane behavior and functions associated with SIDs o Operation, Administration and Management (OAM), and traffic accounting in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies. o Performance Management (PM) and monitoring in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies. o Inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS and between SR and existing routing solutions to allow for seamless deployment and co-existence.. o new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior (e.g. local ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing replication structure) if needed for new usages. Any of the above may require architectural extensions. The work-items of SPRING WG also include: o Specification of management models (YANG) for Segment Routing applications, services and networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes. The SPRING WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific expected interactions include (but may not be limited to): * mpls on the MPLS dataplane and OAM extensions, * 6man on the IPv6 dataplane for SR and associated OAM extensions * lsr on OSPF and IS-IS extensions to flood SPRING-related information * IDR for BGP extensions * bess for VPN control plane * pce on extensions to communicate with an external entity to compute and program SPRING paths * teas on generic traffic engineering architecture * sfc on service chaining applications * rtgwg on fast-reroute technologies Thanks, Rob, Bruno From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Shakir Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 6:06 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter Hi SPRING, After the discussions on the list and in London relating to the charter, Bruno and I have been working to propose a new charter for the WG with Martin, and the other routing ADs. The text for this suggested charter is below. We would like to solicit WG feedback on the charter text prior to Martin taking to the IESG. We'd like to try and get the charter agreed prior to IETF 102 in Montréal. The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new applications, and specify extensions of Segment Routing technologies. The SPRING WG defines procedures that allow a node to steer a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list of instructions called segments and without the need for per-path state information to be held at transit nodes. Full explicit control (through loose or strict path specification) can be achieved in a network comprising only SPRING nodes, however SPRING nodes must inter-operate through loose routing in existing networks and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for other network applications. The scope of the SPRING WG work includes both single Autonomous System (AS) and multi-AS environments. Segment Routing operates within a trusted domain; as described in the architecture, a node imposing a segment list is assumed to be allowed to do so. Nonetheless, the SPRING WG must strive to identify and address security considerations brought up by the technologies it defines. The technologies SPRING WG defines may be applicable to both centralised and distributed path computation. SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any modification of - or extension to - existing architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, data plane, or control or management plane protocol being modified and in coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors. The SPRING WG will manage its specific work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director. The work-items of the SPRING WG include functional specifications for: o Segment Routing policies and the associated steering and traffic engineering mechanisms. o Source-routed stateless service chaining using SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes. o SRv6 network programming for the underlay networks and overlay services, and including data plane behavior and functions associated with SIDs o Operation, Administration and Management (OAM), and traffic accounting in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies. o Performance Management (PM) and monitoring in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies. o The inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS. o Using SR as the mechanism to identify sets of resources in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes. Any of the above may require architectural extensions. The work-items of SPRING WG also include: o Specification of management models (YANG) for Segment Routing applications, services and networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes. The SPRING WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific expected interactions include (but may not be limited to): * mpls on the MPLS dataplane and OAM extensions, * 6man on the IPv6 dataplane for SR and associated OAM extensions * lsr on OSPF and IS-IS extensions to flood SPRING-related information * idr for BGP extensions * bess for VPN control plane * pce on extensions to communicate with an external entity to compute and program SPRING paths * teas on generic traffic engineering architecture Please comment on the contents of the charter text on the list. Thanks, Bruno & Rob _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
