Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Ebben Aries]

+1 to Rob's comment here

Just because use cases come along while another draft is in flight
shouldn't mean you have to loop back to the initial draft.  If this was
the case, you're prolonging an already lengthy process.  There are
likely many more to come in the future that have not been thought of yet

On 09/25/2015 02:22 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 is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle interface,
>> information about each of the bundle members interface is required to be 
>> flooded
>> using IGP extension. Segment routing framework is generic and flexible 
>> enough to handle  
>> this.
>> IGP extension need to support it.
>> […snip…]
> 
> Right - but this draft does not seek to catalogue every possible use of SR - 
> since it could not possibly do this (given that some will be invented in the 
> future). The examples within it give sufficient motivation for the types of 
> SID that are defined which, IMHO, is their intention.
> 
> I think it would be best to finalise this document with what is there. 
> Perhaps my co-authors will disagree.
> 
> r.
> 
> ___
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A=iHfJlJW%2FL4TlTdzDDLsURt1PgCZ0SxsuqCo%2BvMo%2F6aQ%3D%0A=6e218431a9c85e2b85037955a8b78442a48f34373701dbff963e658251e612ff
> 

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

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)]

This use case was presented in Segment routing use case draft which is adopted 
by IETF. 
I feel this is important and basic requirement for Segment routing. 
IMHO : This can be incorporated. I feel it's not too late to add. 
Hope authors and community agree to my opinion.

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” - Jon Postel



> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ebben Aries
> Sent: 29 September 2015 02:24
> To: Rob Shakir; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.auth...@ietf.org;
> Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05
> 
> +1 to Rob's comment here
> 
> Just because use cases come along while another draft is in flight
> shouldn't mean you have to loop back to the initial draft.  If this was
> the case, you're prolonging an already lengthy process.  There are
> likely many more to come in the future that have not been thought of
> yet
> 
> On 09/25/2015 02:22 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 is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle
> >> interface, information about each of the bundle members interface is
> >> required to be flooded using IGP extension. Segment routing
> framework
> >> is generic and flexible enough to handle this.
> >> IGP extension need to support it.
> >> […snip…]
> >
> > Right - but this draft does not seek to catalogue every possible use
> of SR - since it could not possibly do this (given that some will be
> invented in the future). The examples within it give sufficient
> motivation for the types of SID that are defined which, IMHO, is their
> intention.
> >
> > I think it would be best to finalise this document with what is there.
> Perhaps my co-authors will disagree.
> >
> > r.
> >
> > ___
> > spring mailing list
> > spring@ietf.org
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailma
> >
> n/listinfo/spring=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A=GJQFPrZyyh453ywa
> > GV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A=iHfJlJW%2FL4TlTdzDDLsURt1PgCZ0SxsuqCo%2BvMo%2F6aQ%
> >
> 3D%0A=6e218431a9c85e2b85037955a8b78442a48f34373701dbff963e658251e612
> > ff
> >
> 
> ___
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)]

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 is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle interface,

information about each of the bundle members interface is required to be flooded
using IGP extension. Segment routing framework is generic and flexible enough 
to handle
this.
IGP extension need to support it.
[…snip…]

Right - but this draft does not seek to catalogue every possible use of SR - 
since it could not possibly do this (given that some will be invented in the 
future). The examples within it give sufficient motivation for the types of SID 
that are defined which, IMHO, is their intention.

I think it would be best to finalise this document with what is there. Perhaps 
my co-authors will disagree.

r.

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


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

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)]

I agree.

s.


On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:22 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 is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle interface,
>> information about each of the bundle members interface is required to be 
>> flooded
>> using IGP extension. Segment routing framework is generic and flexible 
>> enough to handle  
>> this.
>> IGP extension need to support it.
>> […snip…]
> 
> Right - but this draft does not seek to catalogue every possible use of SR - 
> since it could not possibly do this (given that some will be invented in the 
> future). The examples within it give sufficient motivation for the types of 
> SID that are defined which, IMHO, is their intention.
> 
> I think it would be best to finalise this document with what is there. 
> Perhaps my co-authors will disagree.
> 
> r.

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

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Rob Shakir]

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 is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle interface,
> information about each of the bundle members interface is required to be 
> flooded
> using IGP extension. Segment routing framework is generic and flexible enough 
> to handle  
> this.
> IGP extension need to support it.
> […snip…]

Right - but this draft does not seek to catalogue every possible use of SR - 
since it could not possibly do this (given that some will be invented in the 
future). The examples within it give sufficient motivation for the types of SID 
that are defined which, IMHO, is their intention.

I think it would be best to finalise this document with what is there. Perhaps 
my co-authors will disagree.

r.

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

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for reverting back the mail. 

If there is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle interface, 
information about each of the bundle members interface is required to be 
flooded 
using IGP extension. Segment routing framework is generic and flexible enough 
to handle this. 
IGP extension need to support it.

There exist an ISIS Draft to handle it which I got to know yesterday from Les 
Ginsberg
Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles-00.txt

I feel it's better to have all related information in one draft rather than 
having multiple drafts 
To distribute related information.

One small use case would be monitoring availability of bundle interface 
availability.

We can find reference to it in "Segment Routing Use Cases"
6.1.  Monitoring a remote bundle


   +--+_   +--++---+
   |  |   { }  |  |---991---L1---662---|   |
   |MS|--{   }-|R1|---992---L2---663---|R2 (72)|
   |  |   {_}  |  |---993---L3---664---|   |
   +--++--++---+

Probing all the links of a remote bundle


Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” - Jon Postel



> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
> Sent: 24 September 2015 18:01
> To: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.auth...@ietf.org; Anil Kumar S N
> (VRP Network BL)
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05
> 
> Anil,
> 
> Thanks for the mail.
> 
> On September 23, 2015 at 02:19:54, Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
> (anil...@huawei.com) wrote:
> > 3.5.3. Bundle Adjacency Segments
> >
> > A number of physical interfaces can be bundled to be a a logical
> > interface. Adj-SIDs can be used in order to represent individual
> > member interface of a logical bundle interface. The few advantages of
> > the bundled interface are expansion of interface bandwidth, increase
> > the link reliability and flow load sharing=
> 
> Can you expand on why you think this adds to what is said in 3.5.1?
> This document is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of the
> things that one could do with SR, and my feeling is that §3.5.1
> adequately covers the Adj-SID use case.
> 
> Thanks,
> r.
> 
> ___
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

[Rob Shakir]

Anil,

Thanks for the mail.

On September 23, 2015 at 02:19:54, Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) 
(anil...@huawei.com) wrote:
> 3.5.3. Bundle Adjacency Segments
>  
> A number of physical interfaces can be bundled to be a
> a logical interface. Adj-SIDs can be used in order to represent individual 
> member interface  
> of a logical bundle interface. The few advantages of the bundled interface 
> are expansion  
> of
> interface bandwidth, increase the link reliability and flow load sharing=

Can you expand on why you think this adds to what is said in 3.5.1? This 
document is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of the things that one 
could do with SR, and my feeling is that §3.5.1 adequately covers the Adj-SID 
use case.

Thanks,
r.

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