There were several issues raised. I don't think fragmentation actually came up
as one of them, but that is good point.
[Uma]: Yes.
Intermediate nodes cannot fragment packets in IPv6.
…
- The proposal attempted to carve out an exception to RFC8200 for just SR and
limited use to controlled domai
Hi Uma,
> [Uma]: SRH in the proposal not only put a sort of mobility solution (encoded
> in the SID) but also use to guide the packet through non shortest path from
> the source as needed and as listed in the SRH.
>
It would be nice to have a concrete example of how this would be used
and how SR u
>
> So, in your mind how many SIR prefixes will be used in a
typical T1 operator domain?
Sri, very good question and I don't think anybody figured this yet for 5G..
> Also, how can we quantify the state that ILA introduces in
different parts
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Uma Chunduri
wrote:
> Comments are spot-on.
>
>
>
> Can somebody tell 8200 update would be a possibility in future (w.r.t 6man
> consensus) i.e., EH insertion in the middle without re-encapsulating the
> SRH again.
>
> I presume the technical aspect for the 8200
Comments are spot-on.
Can somebody tell 8200 update would be a possibility in future (w.r.t 6man
consensus) i.e., EH insertion in the middle without re-encapsulating the SRH
again.
I presume the technical aspect for the 8200 mandate is the ability to fragment
if needed at the insertion point. A
Hi Jeff,
Out focus is on anchor management. W.r.t traffic steering, Satoru-san's work is
the basis and we will leverage that. The below questions are specific to that
work. We should discuss these points.
Regards
Sri
From: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 2
Hi Sri,
My observations are very close to Tom’s.
Is new draft going to address questions asked or there will be follow up?
Thanks!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 09:19, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom:
>
> Marco and myself are planning to publish another proposal on ancho
