John, > Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a stretch.
I use a very basic and simple rule of thumb ... if address of my packet is a multicast address then it is multicast if not it is unicast. Ref: https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml Solution as described in draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment does not seems to be requiring multicast addresses hence it is applicable to pure unicast networks. Thx, Robert. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:20 PM John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote: > Robert, > > > > I’m sorry for the confusion. My only point was that MVPN provides the > reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of > tunnel types in a consistent manner, as Sasha alluded to in his mention of > PMSI. Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a > stretch. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:55 PM > *To:* John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> > *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; > spring@ietf.org; > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; < > spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org> (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org) < > spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG > Adoption" > > > > Hi John, > > > > > Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever. > > > > Just curious how is this at all relevant for this discussion ? > > > > Do I have to roll out MVPN monster to split my unicast UDP stream to few > receivers at selected network point ? > > > > And last but not least who said this is at all related to "ingress > replication" ??? Ingress to p2mp segment can be at any SR midpoint in the > network. Are you suggesting to run MVPN apparatus with manual tree building > ? Whow :) > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think Sasha has a valid point. Further, ingress replication has been > part of MVPN since forever. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexander > Vainshtein > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM > *To:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; < > spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org> (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org) < > spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG > Adoption" > > > > Robert, > > Lots of thanks for a prompt response. > > > > You seem to imply that a multicast distribution tree that is built, say, > by an SDN controller and used, say, to act as a PMSI in the mVPN > application, is not really a multicast. Personally I disagree, but this is > a matter of taste and terminology. > > > > What looks unambiguous to me is that: > > - The WG charter explicitly mentions ingress replication as one of > “new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior” that “may require > architectural extensions” > - The current architecture document does not cover any such segment > type (whether because such segments have been considered as related to > multicast by the authors, or for some other reason is not all that > important. ) > > Therefore my concern remains unresolved regardless of whether ingress > replication is or is not formally considered as multicast. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 4:15 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> > *Cc:* <spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org> (spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org) < > spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; > spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG > Adoption" > > > > Sasha, > > > > If I have some content and I send it to you and your neighbour as two > unicast streams am I suddenly doing multicast ? > > > > IMHO N number of replicated unicasts is still not a multicast. > > > > Multicast in my definition requires multicast groups, receiver joins, > tree building protocols etc ... and this draft does not suggest any of > this. IN contrast it just describes how can we have p2mp unicast > distribution ... call it fan out node. > > > > Thx, > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM Alexander Vainshtein < > alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question regarding adoption of > draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document. > > > > These concerns are based on the following: > > 1. This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals > with local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in its turn, is > one of the issues that could be used for delivery of multicast. > > 2. Local ingress replication is mentioned in the SPRING WG Charter > as one of the “New types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior”. The > charter further says that “Any of the above <*Sasha: New types of > segments*> may require architectural extensions” > > 3. The current (and, AFAIK, the only existing) Segment Routing > Architecture document (RFC 8402 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/34qM9QogJnh1eY5nZPXYAkA6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Frfc8402__;JSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUOvwkLSU$>) > explicitly states in Section 6 that “Segment Routing is defined for > unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in > the scope of this document”. > > The combinations of observations above strongly suggests to me that a > document defining multicast-related extensions of segment routing > architecture should be very useful (if not mandatory) for progressing the > Replication Segment draft. From my POV the Replication Segment draft is not > (and is not intended to be) such a document. > > > > I wonder if there is an intention to produce such a document in the > timeframe that could be relevant for discussion of the Replication Segment > draft. > > > > Nothing in this message should be interpreted as my objection to (or > support of) adoption of the Replication Segment draft as a WG document *per > se*. > > Bit I find it difficult to take a position any which way without a clear > and commonly agreed upon framework for multicast in segment routing. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:06 PM > To: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org; > spring-cha...@ietf..org; spring@ietf.org > Subject: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed > draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG > Adoption" > > > > > > The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in > state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Bruno Decraene) > > > > The document is available at > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment*2F__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUHVCWfyU$> > > > > Comment: > > IPR call: > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fmailarchive.ietf.org*2Farch*2Fmsg*2Fspring*2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us__;JSUlJSUlJQ!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUfVccUWU$> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > spring@ietf.org > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUhKjFqCs$> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is > CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have > received this > transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then > delete the original > and all copies thereof. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KSi9HHVnunMDQNLd2U3Sij6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUZIWr6Wk$> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is > CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have > received this > transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then > delete the original > and all copies thereof. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
