Hi Balázs Very nicely put that the redundancy protection draft was inspired by DETNET framework to now provide extensions to improve the functionality of SR.
We will make that clear in the draft. As for DETNET use case I think we can leave off the table for now and update the draft accordingly. After adoption we can investigate the possibilities and of making the redundancy protection inclusive of DETNET. I think the hurdle of P2MP and as that is out of scope today and as DETNET to be an inclusive use case we would have to figure out P2MP which will be challenging. Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:20 PM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Fan, > > > > Thanks for your prompt reply. > > I agree with your direction to redefine the target of this mechanism. In > my view your draft was “inspired by DetNet” and > > intends to improve the functionality of SR. That is absolutely fine. :--)) > > > > Please, make it clear in the draft as well, that would avoid any > misinterpretations. > > > > Thanks & Cheers > > Bala’zs > > > > > > *From:* Yangfan (IP Standard) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2021 11:09 PM > *To:* Balázs Varga A <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > *Cc:* spring <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* 答复: IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redundancy-protection > > > > Hi Balazs, > > > > Thank you for your comments. > > As what Gyan mentioned during the presentation, this draft redefines > redundancy protection as a general protection mechanism designed for SR > network. Firstly, it is a general mechanism can be used in many uses cases, > not only DetNet use case. Secondly, it applies to SR network, not a general > IP or MPLS data plane solution which Detnet requires. Since the scope is > changed, I don’t think redundancy protection is necessary to follow DetNet > architecture. > > If redundancy protection is not a DetNet mechanism, I don’t think it > should cover both P2P and P2MP services. > > We are happy to address the comments that relates to redundancy protection > in next revision. > > > > Thanks. > > Fan > > > > *发件人**:* Balázs Varga A [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *发送时间:* 2021年7月27日 4:49 > *收件人:* [email protected] > *抄送:* spring <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *主题:* IETF-111 SPRING presentation on sr-redundancy-protection > > > > Hi, > > > > As time not permitted comments during the SPRING meeting, major comments > regarding the > > redundancy protection presentation: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-spring-sr-for-redundancy-protection-00 > > > > 1, General: despite the reference to DetNet this draft is not compliant > with Figure 1 of RFC8655 (DetNet Architecture) > > 2, Slide-9: DetNet provides both p2p and p2mp services. This draft only > p2p, so many DetNet use cases cannot be supported > > 3, Slide-9: there were many DetNet related comments on the list. Only some > were addressed in the latest version of the draft. > > > > Thanks & Cheers > > Bala’zs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > detnet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
