Rishabh,
Is Section 2 of the SR replication segment draft compliant with Section 2.7 of
RFC 4291? Could it be brought into compliance by using the high order 16 bits
that RFC 4291 recommends?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Srcomp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Weiqiang Cheng
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:28 AM
To: 'Rishabh Parekh' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; 'SPRING WG List' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Rishabh,
Thanks for your comments.
It is good point, and DT will consider the it in.
B.R.
Weiqiang Cheng
发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Rishabh Parekh
发送时间: 2021年2月27日 01:50
收件人: Weiqiang Cheng
抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; SPRING WG List
主题: Re: [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team
Weiqiang,
Text quoted below from the SPRING charter indirectly covers Point-to-Multipoint
requirement which is addressed by SR Replication Segment draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce0i_WdUG$>
New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local
ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
replication structure) if needed for new usages.
For the Point-to-Multipoint compression requirement, what exactly is "multicast
address" in the Metric? Is this an IPv6 multicast address? If so, it really
does not conform to SRv6 data plane.
I would rather consider the SRv6 Replication SID, described in the latest
version of SR Replication segment draft, to be the Metric for measuring P2MP
requirement. Maybe we should also consider adding it to SRv6 Functionality
Section 4.2.1 of the compression requirements draft.
-Rishabh
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:25 AM Weiqiang Cheng
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi All,
Two drafts have been submitted. Please review them and any comments are
welcomed.
Compression requirement draft -04 version provided two more requirements:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce1UWnkzI$>
Compression analysis draft -00 provided a skeleton for the analysis of 4
candidate proposals.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce4mNqDYS$>
B.R.
Weiqiang
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce6GLiq7Z$>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
