I agree.
I remember I mentioned something similar at the mic during the SPRING WG
meeting in the IETF in Singapore
The draft proposes a mechanism that allows forwarding SR-MPLS packets
through a sub-domain that only understand pure IP. The draft suggests
using MPLS in UDP tunneling (which is
- and the conflict resolution draft has expired.
Thank you!
r.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
mailto:basha...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Here is a new version of the draft. This version has non-trivial
changes from the previous one. Here is a summary
Hi,
Here is a new version of the draft. This version has non-trivial changes
from the previous one. Here is a summary of the changes
- Specifications of the rules governing SRGB and SRLB
- Specification of how to translate a SID index into a label
- Specification of what a router do when recei
Hi Alvaro
sorry for the late reply.
I am including the questions and comments in the link [1] and the reply
to each one of them
See "Ahmed" underneath each question and comment
Q1. Why is this document on the Standards Track? From the Introduction:
“This drafts describes how Segment Routin
October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
(basha...@cisco.com <mailto:basha...@cisco.com> ) wrote:
Ahmed:
Hi! How are you?
...
The main questions/concerns that I have related to this document is
not just for the authors, but for the Shepherd and the Chairs too.
Q1. W
I just checked the IPR section in ietf.org. The IPR disclosure for this
draft can be found in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls&submit=draft&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=
Thanks
Ahmed
On 10/30/2
Sorry for the late reply and thanks a lot for the thorough review.
We have just uploaded version 11 of the draft.
See replies inline “#Ahmed” to your comments
Thanks
Ahmed
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
(aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:3
Hi
Also support as a co-author
Ahmed
On 1/30/2017 12:58 AM, Martin Horneffer wrote:
Hello,
support from me as co-author and operator.
Bets regards, Martin
Am 27.01.17 um 12:05 schrieb Martin Vigoureux:
Hello Working Group,
This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
draft-ie
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
Thanks
Ahmed
On 9/9/2016 4:57 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
Authors and Contributors,
it seems that we are missing answers to the IPR question from a good
number of people:
Authors: Clarence, Ahmed, Martin, and Edward
Contributors:
Support. Very much needed
Ahmed
On 4/14/2016 12:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been
requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution.
Please reply to the list with your comments, including although n
Hi Robin
The mapping server is already implemented. And it is not that complex at all
As for the support of inter-AS option "C", there are two solutions
(1) "draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-01" provides a way to use
the prefix-SID of one address for another one. So refering to the secon
Thanks a lot Les for the elaborate explanation
One small addition to what Les mentioned. The functionality proposed by
the draft can be achieved by having a base prefix-SID index and then
configuring an offset (instead of an SRGB) for each topology/algorithm
pair from that base prefix-SID inde
if I understand you reply to Peter correctly, does this means that
multi-prefix SID should not be leaked outside its originating area?
Ahmed
On 10/8/2015 6:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 10/8/15, 6:03 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
how do you envision to find out the node ori
Support as an author
Not aware of undisclosed IPR
Ahmed
On 9/23/2015 9:59 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:
Support and not aware of IPR related to this draft
On 22/07/15 15:17, "mpls on behalf of John G.Scudder" wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group ado
Totally agree
We expect lots of applications and use cases to come.
Let's close this document
Ahmed
On 9/25/2015 1:22 AM, Rob Shakir wrote:
On 24 September 2015 at 09:09:00, Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
(anil...@huawei.com) wrote:
Hi Rob,
Thanks for reverting back the mail.
If there
Important draft that completes the segment routing overall architecture.
Support adoption
Ahmed
On 8/6/2015 1:54 PM, Voyer, Daniel (520309) wrote:
I have read the draft and support for adoption.
D.
On 2015-08-03, 03:35, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com"
wrote:
FYI: IPv6 Segme
One of the objective of the YANG Model is to manage devices. Hence the
flexibility of having a separate SRGB per protocol is necessary, at
least for operational reasons
Ahmed
On 7/29/2015 2:01 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Stephane --
What is the requirement to have a per-protocol SRG
Support
Ahmed
On 7/22/2015 6:15 AM, John G.Scudder wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe. Please reply
to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether
strongly support
Thanks
Ahmed
On 7/22/2015 6:15 AM, John G.Scudder wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-msdc. Please reply to the
list with your comments, including although not limited
Support
Ahmed
On 7/22/2015 6:17 AM, John G.Scudder wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop. Please reply
to the list with your comments, including although not limited to whether
20 matches
Mail list logo