[Int-area] ICMP Considerations

Folks, Over the years, I have written several forwarding plane documents that mention ICMP. During the review of these documents, people have raised issues of the like the following: * shouldn't we mention that ICMP message delivery is not reliable? * shouldn't we mention that ICMP

[Pce] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready This draft is direct and well-written. It has clearly been reviewed by experts and is ready for publication. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

, March 27, 2024 11:48 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Tom Herbert ; spring@ietf.org ; Alvaro Retana ; Robert Raszuk ; Stewart Bryant ; Andrew Alston - IETF Subject: Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron, I think

Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Sasha, Are we in violent agreement ? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:44 AM To: Stewart Bryant ; Andrew Alston - IETF Cc: Tom Herbert ; Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

day, March 27, 2024 9:01 AM To: Ron Bonica ; Antoine FRESSANCOURT ; Tom Herbert Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org ; Robert Raszuk ; Alvaro Retana Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] 100% agree

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Antoine FRESSANCOURT Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 4:42 AM To: Andrew Alston - IETF ; Tom Herbert ; Ron Bonica Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org ; Robert Raszuk

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

7:52 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; Robert Raszuk ; Alvaro Retana Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:03 PM Ron Bonica wrote

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Business Use Only From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:24 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: spring@ietf.org ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; Robert Raszuk ; Tom Herbert ; Alvaro Retana Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:24 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Tom Herbert ; Alvaro Retana ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; spring@ietf.org ; Joel Halpern Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: spring@ietf.org ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; Robert Raszuk ; Tom Herbert ; Alvaro Retana Subject: RE: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron and all, I respectfully disagree with the proposal

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

From: Tom Herbert Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:40 PM To: Alvaro Retana Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org ; Joel Halpern Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] On Mon, Mar 25

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Andrew, Tom Herbert (copied on this message) raised the same issue regarding another draft on the 6man mailing list a few months ago. I suggested that if this problem ever needed to be solved, it could be solved with a new Hob-by-hop option. This option would contain the IPv6 address of the

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

n your draft. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Tal Mizrahi Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:46 AM To: Andrew Alston - IETF Cc: Antoine FRESSANCOURT ; Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compressio

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Folks, Has anyone proposed a solution to the L4 checksum problem that Andrew talks about? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring on behalf of Andrew Alston - IETF Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 5:21 AM To:

[OPSAWG] A YANG model for Power Management

Folks, Please review and comment on: A YANG model for Power Management draft-li-ivy-power-01 Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org

[netmod] A YANG model for Power Management

Folks, Please review and comment on: A YANG model for Power Management draft-li-ivy-power-01 Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org

Re: [spring] A review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-08

Adrian, You say, " b. draft-ietf-spring-compression-requirement has expired and perhaps the WG intends it to fade away now that this draft is close to completion." As a co-author, I think that draft-ietf-spring-compression-requirement should be allowed to fade away. It has received

Route Hijacks

Folks, Can anyone point me at literature regarding the frequency and cost of BGP route hijacks? Also, please email me privately if there is any information that you can share in confidence. Ron Juniper

Re: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Ron Bonica ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella ; spring@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF Subject: Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content

Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Ron Bonica ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella ; spr...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF Subject: Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content

Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

On second thought, if we had the new ethertype, we wouldn’t need the new /16! They serve the same function Ron From: Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 1:05 PM To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella Cc: Adrian

Re: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

On second thought, if we had the new ethertype, we wouldn’t need the new /16! They serve the same function Ron From: Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 1:05 PM To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti Kompella Cc: Adrian

Re: [spring] [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

+1 If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt, we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used. Ron From: spring On Behalf Of

Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt

+1 If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt, we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used. Ron From: spring On Behalf Of

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"

Me too. Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 10:55 AM To: Robert Raszuk ; John E Drake Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Ketan Talaulikar ; draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call IPR poll for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"

Folks, I am not aware of any IPR beyond that which has already been disclosed to the IETF and is referenced in your email. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

. Wouldn't we be better off with a new AFI/SAFI? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 3:49 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: int-...@ietf.org; BESS ; draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services

[bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Not Ready I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.txt. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would

Re: [OPSEC] Adoption call for draft-paine-smart-indicators-of-compromise

Folks, This message ends the WG Last call on draft-paine-smart-indicators-of-compromise. The draft has been adopted. Authors, Please resubmit the draft as draft-ietf-opsec-smart-indicators-of-compromise-00.

Re: [spring] uSID and destination options

the flag, tag and TLV fields Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 3:27 PM To: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: uSID and destination options [External Email

Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark

need anything else. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Tianran Zhou Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:08 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i

Re: [spring] uSID and destination options

Dukes (ddukes) Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:31 AM To: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: uSID and destination options [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, my read of section 4.1.1 of the draft is the dest opt in your example packet would be processed

Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark

Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Tianran Zhou Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:03 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m

Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark

Folks, The SRH TLV for Alternate Marking isn't needed because its meaning is identical to the AltMark Option when it appears in a Destination Options Header that precedes the SRH. Arguments regarding the HBH are orthogonal to this issue. The HBH is processed at every node along a packet's

[spring] uSID and destination options

C-SID authors, Consider an SRv6 packet that contains: * An outer IPv6 header * A Destination Options Header * IPv4 payload The packet does not contain an SRH. However, the Destination Address field in the outer IPv6 header contains a C-SID container and the C-SID container

[Acme] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-07

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready Looks reasonable. Well-written. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [spring] "This solution does not require any SRH data plane change" in draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:10 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: John Scudder ; draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] "This solution does not require any SRH data plane change"

Re: [spring] "This solution does not require any SRH data plane change" in draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

Robert, Which requirement was that? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:41 PM To: John Scudder Cc: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re:

[DNSOP] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready Looks well thought out. No glaring problems. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [spring] CSID proposed clarifications

Authors, Could you update the draft to reflect the new pseudocode, below. It is essential to the 6man review. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent:

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Jim, Before accepting this document, we might want to discuss why the NEXT-C-SID behavior and the REPLACE-C-SID behavior are both needed. Even if there are use cases in which one performs slightly better than the other, it the performance improvement really worth all of the additional

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

- From: Tom Herbert Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:48 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Brian E Carpenter ; Robert Raszuk ; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org>; SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 [External Email. Be cautious of content] On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:14

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

Folks, It is much more simple than this. According to RFC 8200, an IPv6 Destination Address is the “128-bit address of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly not the ultimate recipient, if a Routing header is present). See [RFC4291] and Section 4.4.” Therefore, if a packet does not

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

Inline [RB] Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Eduard Metz Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 5:03 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: 6...@ietf.org; SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Can the SID

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

." The WG needs to determine whether the requirements that register a difference are significant. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Ahmed Bashandy Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:21 PM To: Ron Bonica ; James Guich

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:58 PM To: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica Cc: James Guichard ; SPRING WG ; spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Ahmed, I don't recall the DT recommending the CSID. In fact, the word "recommend" does not appear anywhere in the analysis document. As a member of the DT, I don't recommend CSID. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From:

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

) Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:58 PM To: Ron Bonica ; James Guichard ; SPRING WG Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron, I believe your

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-rv6-srh-compression/

Jim, The call for adoption has already been posted. There is no way to put that toothpaste back into its tube. However, I strongly recommend against such calls for adoption in the future. Normally, the authors of a document are encouraged to answer technical questions as a condition of

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

represent a single thing on a single node. It represents an entire SR path. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:35 PM To: 6...@ietf.org Cc: SPRING WG Subject: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 Folk

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Pablo, The WG has expressed a strong preference for having a single compression *behavior*. Why is it OK to ignore that preference because RFC 8986 has 36 different behaviors? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

? Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:05 PM To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Ron Bonica ; 6...@ietf.org

Re: [spring] [srcomp] compression analysis draft question on proposals analyzed

And more specifically, all of the tables in Section A.2 will be modified, replacing the C-SID column with one column for NEXT-C-SID, one column for REPLACE-C-SID, and one column for NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID Ron Juniper Business

Re: [spring] CSID Question

Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: liu.ai...@zte.com.cn Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 9:03 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: rob...@raszuk.net; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re:[spring] CSID Question [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, You raised

Re: [spring] CSID Question

it ? Now I am going to rest assured and enjoy the rest of this show. Best, Robert On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:58 PM Ron Bonica mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> wrote: Robert, I do remember that quote. And that is exactly why I ask the question! If NEXT-C-SID and REPLACE-C-SID are incomp

Re: [spring] CSID Question

. Ron P.S. Rest assured that I have read the draft. However, your concern is greatly appreciated  Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:32 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: SPRING WG Subject

[spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02

Folks, Draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 introduces three new SID types that can occupy the Destination Address field of an IPv6 header. See Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the draft for details. The SPRING WG has issued a call for adoption for this draft. It is not clear that

[spring] CSID Question

CSID Authors, Assume that an SR path contains segments 1 through 8. Segments 1, 3, 5, and 7 are END SIDs that use Next-C-SID (i.e., uSID). Segments 2, 4, and 6 are END SIDs that use Replace-C-SID. Segment 8 is and END.DX4 SID. Please provide an example that shows us: * What the SRH looks

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Chairs, I strongly object to the adoption of this draft. I also note that this is a very strange adoption call. The WG has indicated a preference for a single forwarding plane behavior. However, bullets #1 and #4 in the Call for Adoption suggest that the WG has yet to address whether the

Re: [spring] Thoughts on optimality

Tony, Thanks for pointing out that all requirements are not equally important. Some may be extremely important while others are minimally important. Therefore, our analysis should focus on the important requirements. I agree that Encapsulation Header Size is the most important requirement. I

Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1

Gyan, You raise a very good point. In the analysis document, Tables 1 through 6 and Tables 12 through 15 each contain only one column for the CSID. They do not indicate whether the number in that column were calculated using the NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, or NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID. (That is,

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Dhruv, My hope is that the WG will consider each requirement in Appendix A, taking one of the following actions for each: * Drop the requirement * Move the requirement into the main body of the text * Modify the requirement and move it into the main body of the text Each item

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Dhruv, You raise a very good question. What makes us think that the largest network diameter is 16? Next year, it may be 32! Maybe we need to rethink this requirement. An IPv6 routing header can contain no more than 2,048 bytes. Therefore, an SRH without compression can support an SR path

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Dhruv, Thanks for you review and support. Does the change below (inline) address your first comment? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:56 PM To: bruno.decra...@orange.com

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Bruno, Thanks. This clears up the confusion. I support adoption. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 5:50 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Bruno, When a WG adopts a design team draft, I assume that the draft becomes subject to the following guidelines from RFC7221: "Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is owned by the working group and can be changed however the working group decides, within the bounds of IETF

Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints

reed upon architecture at all? Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:05 AM To: Voyer, Daniel ; Voyer, Daniel ; Jeff Tantsura ; Yingzhen Qu Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ron Boni

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt

Folks, Please review and comment. Ron Juniper Business Use Only > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 11:31 PM > To: Chris Bowers ; Robert Raszuk > ; Ron Bonica ; Shraddha Hegde > ; Zhenbin

Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints

. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:52 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints

Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints

the shortest path Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 10:22 AM To: Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo

Re: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints

Acee, Please help me to parse your message. It is clear that you want draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con to specify ASLA's. However, your rationale is not so clear. It is not because RFC 8919 mandates ASLA. In fact, we agree that it would be strange for an RFC to include a mandate that precludes

[Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready Good idea! ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready Good idea! ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

Tony, Thanks for these wise words! It is time for the WG to consider the DT output and make an informed decision based on best technical reasoning, not current popularity, deployment or market share. IMHO, the requirements and analysis documents are not a ringing endorsement for any

Re: [Lsr] Generic metric: application-specific vs application-independent

Gunter, I think we agree that some link attributes are application specific while others are application independent. However, it is not so easy to figure out which link attributes should be assigned to each category. In your message below, you suggest that any attribute whose value is learned

[OPSEC] Apology

Folks, I offer my sincere apology for missing our meeting today. I converted time zones incorrectly and showed up 45 minutes late. Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ OPSEC mailing

Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression

al numbers? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:13 PM To: SPRING WG Cc: Ron Bonica Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)

Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:45 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Shraddha Hegde ; gregory.mir...@ztetx.com; lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.auth...@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lsr

Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression

Gyan, The design team was not chartered to select a winner. It was chartered to provide input to the WG. AFAIKS, the WG still has the following tasks before it: * To determine whether the all candidate solutions are compliant with existing BCP and PS drafts (particularly RFC 4291) *

[spring] The deferred compression requirement

Chairs, The design team did not consider whether the candidate compression schemes comply with existing BCP and PS drafts. We agreed that the WG would take up this issue after the design team completed its work. I think that there is a question as to whether the CSID solution complies with

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)

If so, why? Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:31 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Shraddha Hegde ; gregory.mir...@ztetx.com; lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-fl

[Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)

; However, Flex-Algorithm calculations include the IGP metric. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 10:13 AM To: Ron Bonica ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt

--Original Message- From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 2:49 PM To: Ron Bonica ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Shraddha Hegde ; gregory.mir...@ztetx.com; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.auth...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Lsr] I-D Action:

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt

Acee, I don't think that draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con violates RFC 8919. Section 6.1 of RFC 8919 says: " New applications that future documents define to make use of the advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy advertisements. This simplifies deployment of

[OPSEC] Agenda IETF 111

Folks, I have just posted the agenda for our IETF 111 meeting. There is still plenty of time on the agenda, so please email me if you have something that you want to present. Presenters, Please send your slides as soon as possible.

Re: [OPSEC] IETF 111

jr9-nGX8RqdttJVZpB7uHL_47LZP31A2rL24I6NUcPIplMzh9VSAyresXIJ$> Does anyone else have anything to present? Jen and Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: OPSEC On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:03 AM To: OPSEC Subject: [OPSEC] IE

[OPSEC] IETF 111

Folks, If anyone would like to present anything at IETF 111, send email to opsec-cha...@ietf.og. Jen and Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org

[OPSEC] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-07

Ron Bonica has requested publication of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-07 as Informational on behalf of the OPSEC working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering/ ___ OPSEC

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Support Juniper Business Use Only From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:09 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" -

[OPSAWG] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-08

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready The Yang Model looks reasonable. Given that there are implementations and that the Yang doctors have also reviewed it, I am confident. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman

Re: [spring] operator requirements for draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement

Martin, In Section 4.2.4 (Metric), you say: > Metric: The compression mechanism fits into existing IPv6 address > structures. It does not require management of a new kind of number > resource that needs to be coordinated for all network domains that are > potentially involved. Does this

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

I support adoption. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for

[OPSAWG] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06

Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Ready No obvious problems ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [spring] [Srcomp] New drafts from SRCOMP design team

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

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt

Hi Gyan, In theory, it should map any END.DTM to any MPLS label stack, regardless of the control plane. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Gyan Mishra Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:18 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: Jeff

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-03.txt

Folks, The draft has been updated to address comments. Ron Juniper Business Use Only > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:53 PM > To: Greg Mirsky ; Peng Shaofu &g

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:55 AM To: Jeff Tantsura Cc: Loa Andersson ; Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron This is an interesting SR-MPLS to SRv6

[OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

Folks, This message initiates a WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. Please submit comments by 2/24/2021. Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ OPSEC mailing

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-02.txt

Peng Shaofu > ; Ron Bonica ; Shaofu Peng > ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT- > zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-02.txt > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-spring-srv6

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt

To: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Ron, I think this new SRv6 endpoint behavior is very useful to connect an SRv6 island and an SR-MPLS island. I have two comments

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >