Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Apoorva Karan (apoorva)]

I support the adoption.

Thanks,
Apoorva

From: BESS  On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 4:00 AM
To: draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Serge Krier (sekrier)]

I support adoption.



From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:01 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02



Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.



If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane



[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Krishna Muddenahally Ananthamurthy (kriswamy)]

I support for WG adoption

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:01 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Joel M. Halpern]

No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using 
shorter SIDs.

It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

Hi Gyan,
you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. 
But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is 
considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID 
for SRv6 
. 
U-SID benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a 
higher density of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.


Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra > wrote:



In line possible answers

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> wrote:



Bess,

What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield
deployments or existing mpls deployments.


I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your
thoughts..

This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and
currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the
table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given
that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding
in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to
PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that
have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.


https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf

For existing implementations it appears from my research a no
brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration
but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from
customer MTU to the  backbone MTU today we are over the limit with
larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths.  Until
that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much traction with
service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues uSID and
SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive.





Regards,

Gyan Mishra 

IT Network Engineering & Technology 

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

13101 Columbia Pike

 
FDC1
3rd Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20904

United States

Phone: 301 502-1347 

Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com


www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT



Sent from my iPhone

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Muhammad Durrani]

Support

From: BESS  On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 4:00 AM
To: draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] 答复: SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Jeff Tantsura]

+1

Every technology has a number of trade-offs associated with it, one can’t 
assess gain/loss of a particular technology without understanding the 
architecture as a whole.

As long as we are comparing the technologies in the right context and based on 
their technical merits we come up with a great solution, that is what IETF does!
Else...

Regards,
Jeff

> On Oct 5, 2019, at 07:11, Krzysztof Szarkowicz  wrote:
> 
> I second Robert.
> 
> SRv6 is yet another tool in the overall toolset, and, as with every tool, 
> there are situations (use cases) where using this particular tool might be 
> the optimal solution, whereas there are use cases, where other tools do the 
> job better, and, there are use cases where using this particular tools is 
> complete misunderstanding. There as are as well use cases, where combinations 
> of multiple tools bring the best effect.
> 
> Thanks,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
>> On 2019-Oct-05, at 13:23, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> IMHO the question of SR-MPLS vs SRv6 is wrong as it all depends what are you 
>> trying to accomplish in your network and what services you need to run on it.
>> 
>> For example some networks need TE some do not. 
>> 
>> Some may like to carry L2/L3VPNs some do not. 
>> 
>> Some may think about requirements associated with special packet handling 
>> perhaps augmented with in house development of P4 based fancy services so do 
>> not.. 
>> 
>> Last some network are IPv4 only, some are IPv4+MPLS, some may be dual stack 
>> and some may be IPv6 only. 
>> 
>> For some the overhead associated with attaching additional data to each 
>> packet matters - so do not care and do not even realize it :).. 
>> 
>> So this is very loaded question. It is like asking should I go left or 
>> should I go right without stating your ultimate destination. Sure likely you 
>> may end up there regardless how you turn but it may not be optimal path. 
>> 
>> And last as this is BESS WG ... I would really seriously consider for BESS 
>> services use of RFC4797 and RFC7510. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> R.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Lizhenbin  wrote:
>>> Hi Gyna,
>>> 
>>> We proposed following the draft which has relation with your question. Hope 
>>> it may be helpful.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-network-migration-00
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From my point of view, one of the best advantages of SRv6 is easy 
>>> incremental deployment.
>>> 
>>> I believe there will more deployments of SRv6 soon.
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Zhenbin (Robin)
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Gyan Mishra [hayabusa...@gmail.com]
>>> 发送时间: 2019年10月5日 8:22
>>> 收件人: bess@ietf.org
>>> 主题: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bess,
>>> 
>>> What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or 
>>> existing mpls deployments.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Gyan Mishra 
>>> IT Network Engineering & Technology 
>>> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>>> 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
>>> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>>> United States
>>> Phone: 301 502-1347
>>> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
>>> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> ___
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> BESS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Greg Mirsky]

Hi Gyan,
you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. But I
think that now there are several proposals that address what is considered
the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID for SRv6
. U-SID
benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a higher density
of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra  wrote:

>
> In line possible answers
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra  wrote:
>
>
> Bess,
>
> What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or
> existing mpls deployments.
>
> I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your thoughts..
>
> This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and
> currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the table as
> a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given that customers
> are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding in mpls overhead vpn
> labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to PQ node that adding in the
> entire SID list for long TE paths that have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not
> viable at this point.
>
>
> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf
>
> For existing implementations it appears from my research a no brainer to
> go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration but SRv6 due to
> SID depth issues and given limited head room from customer MTU to the
>  backbone MTU today we are over the limit with larger SID depth for Ti-LFA
> paths or non protected paths.  Until that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately
> may not get much traction with service providers which I think due to the
> SRv6 issues uSID and SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more
> attractive.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gyan Mishra
>
> IT Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>
> 13101 Columbia Pike
>  
> FDC1
> 3rd Floor
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> United States
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[PEIRENS Bart (TSI/MST)]

As contributor, not aware of any undisclosed IPR and supporting adoption


From: BESS  On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 1:00 PM
To: draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


This e-mail cannot be used for other purposes than Proximus business use. See 
more on https://www.proximus.be/maildisclaimer
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Zafar Ali (zali)]

Dear Chairs and the WG,

I support adoption of this draft,


  *   Several independent interoperability reports documenting successful 
interoperability of this draft implementation from multiple vendors exist.
  *   Implementations based on this draft have been deployed in multiple 
commercial networks.
  *   Implementation, deployment, and interoperability status (for this draft) 
are documented in 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01.txt.

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this draft.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 6:59 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] 答复: SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz]

I second Robert.

SRv6 is yet another tool in the overall toolset, and, as with every tool, there 
are situations (use cases) where using this particular tool might be the 
optimal solution, whereas there are use cases, where other tools do the job 
better, and, there are use cases where using this particular tools is complete 
misunderstanding. There as are as well use cases, where combinations of 
multiple tools bring the best effect.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


> On 2019-Oct-05, at 13:23, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
> 
> 
> IMHO the question of SR-MPLS vs SRv6 is wrong as it all depends what are you 
> trying to accomplish in your network and what services you need to run on it.
> 
> For example some networks need TE some do not. 
> 
> Some may like to carry L2/L3VPNs some do not. 
> 
> Some may think about requirements associated with special packet handling 
> perhaps augmented with in house development of P4 based fancy services so do 
> not.. 
> 
> Last some network are IPv4 only, some are IPv4+MPLS, some may be dual stack 
> and some may be IPv6 only. 
> 
> For some the overhead associated with attaching additional data to each 
> packet matters - so do not care and do not even realize it :).. 
> 
> So this is very loaded question. It is like asking should I go left or should 
> I go right without stating your ultimate destination. Sure likely you may end 
> up there regardless how you turn but it may not be optimal path. 
> 
> And last as this is BESS WG ... I would really seriously consider for BESS 
> services use of RFC4797 and RFC7510. 
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Lizhenbin  > wrote:
> Hi Gyna,
> 
> We proposed following the draft which has relation with your question. Hope 
> it may be helpful.
> 
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-network-migration-00 
> 
>  
> From my point of view, one of the best advantages of SRv6 is easy incremental 
> deployment.
> 
> I believe there will more deployments of SRv6 soon.
> 
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
> 
> Zhenbin (Robin)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org ] 代表 Gyan 
> Mishra [hayabusa...@gmail.com ]
> 发送时间: 2019年10月5日 8:22
> 收件人: bess@ietf.org 
> 主题: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS
> 
> 
> Bess,
> 
> What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or 
> existing mpls deployments.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gyan Mishra 
> IT Network Engineering & Technology 
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
> 13101 Columbia Pike 
>  
> FDC1 3rd Floor
>  Silver Spring, MD 
> 20904 
> United States 
> Phone: 301 502-1347 
> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com 
> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess 
> 
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] 答复: SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Robert Raszuk]

IMHO the question of SR-MPLS vs SRv6 is wrong as it all depends what are
you trying to accomplish in your network and what services you need to run
on it.

For example some networks need TE some do not.

Some may like to carry L2/L3VPNs some do not.

Some may think about requirements associated with special packet handling
perhaps augmented with in house development of P4 based fancy services so
do not.

Last some network are IPv4 only, some are IPv4+MPLS, some may be dual stack
and some may be IPv6 only.

For some the overhead associated with attaching additional data to each
packet matters - so do not care and do not even realize it :).

So this is very loaded question. It is like asking should I go left or
should I go right without stating your ultimate destination. Sure likely
you may end up there regardless how you turn but it may not be optimal
path.

And last as this is BESS WG ... I would really seriously consider for BESS
services use of RFC4797 and RFC7510.

Cheers,
R.















On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Lizhenbin  wrote:

> Hi Gyna,
>
> We proposed following the draft which has relation with your question.
> Hope it may be helpful.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-network-migration-00
>
>
>
> From my point of view, one of the best advantages of SRv6 is easy
> incremental deployment.
>
> I believe there will more deployments of SRv6 soon.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *发件人:* BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Gyan Mishra [hayabusa...@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:* 2019年10月5日 8:22
> *收件人:* bess@ietf.org
> *主题:* [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS
>
>
> Bess,
>
> What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or
> existing mpls deployments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gyan Mishra
>
> IT Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>
> 13101 Columbia Pike
>  
> FDC1
> 3rd Floor
>
> Silver Spring, MD
> 20904 
>
> United States 
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] 答复: SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

[Lizhenbin]

Hi Gyna,

We proposed following the draft which has relation with your question. Hope it 
may be helpful.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-spring-srv6-network-migration-00



From my point of view, one of the best advantages of SRv6 is easy incremental 
deployment.

I believe there will more deployments of SRv6 soon.





Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)








发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Gyan Mishra [hayabusa...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2019年10月5日 8:22
收件人: bess@ietf.org
主题: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS


Bess,

What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or existing 
mpls deployments.

Regards,

Gyan Mishra
IT Network Engineering & Technology
Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
13101 Columbia 
Pike
 FDC1 3rd Floor
Silver Spring, MD 
20904
United States
Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT

Sent from my iPhone
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] 答复: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Lizhenbin]

I support the adoption. There are commercial deliveries and deploymens of of 
SRv6 VPN. The draft is relatively mature and it should be adopted.



Best Regards,

Zhenbin(Robin)








发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Shyam Sethuram [shyam.i...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2019年10月5日 1:52
收件人: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
抄送: bess@ietf.org; draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Support the adoption.
There are implementations and deployments of this.

Regards,
Shyam Sethuram

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:01 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess