Hi Xu,
Sure you could. You could do a lot of other things as well.
But what does this buy you if you already have dual stack network
which most operators already do for years ?
For clarity I do not consider as sufficient reason fear from one going
into anaphylactic shock at the mention of IPv6 a
Hi Yakov,
If we are to talk real - let's do it.
mLDP is effectively subset of PIM control plane enhanced to carry MPLS
labels over LDP transport. Unicast LDP control plane procedures have
as I said in my former mail in vast majority nothing in common with
mLDP and vice versa. And I am talking abo
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Raszuk
> 发送时间: 2014年3月28日 16:38
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: Yakov Rekhter; spring@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana, (aretana)
> 主题: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
> draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases
>
> Hi Xu,
>
> Su
Hi Xu,
Today MPLS over GRE support in most implementations I am familiar with
has been supported for applications using MPLS labels as demux to VRFs
(example L2 or L3 VPNs).
It is not directly obvious that one can claim support for transport
MPLS as SID over GRE on existing deployed hardware with
Hi Ross,
On Mar 27, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
>> we can reword the statement so to explain that there are places
>> where mpls is not planned to be deployed while ipv6 is and it is
>> preferred (by the network operators of such infrastructures) to
>> extend ipv6 with sr rather than c
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] 代表 Robert Raszuk
> 发送时间: 2014年3月28日 17:49
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: Yakov Rekhter; spring@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana, (aretana)
> 主题: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
> draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases
>
> Hi Xu,
>
All,
despite the large consensus draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00
already got on the list, and in order to address the few comments we
received about the lack of use cases details in the draft, the authors
decided to include in the problem-statement draft the use-cases originally
descr
Stefano,
> Hi Yakov,
>
> thanks for your comments. See below.
in-line...
[clipped...]
> The reality of the industry is that we have both dataplanes so
> it's obvious that we may want to provide similar functionalities
> for both without claiming one technology is the solution for
> everythi
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
Authors : Stefano Previdi
Hi Yakov,
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Stefano,
>
>> Hi Yakov,
>>
>> thanks for your comments. See below.
>
> in-line...
>
> [clipped...]
>
>> The reality of the industry is that we have both dataplanes so
>> it's obvious that we may want to provide similar functionali
Robin,
> Alvaro,
>
> Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows:
>
> " The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers
>the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE
>to an egress PE, without any other protocol tha
Hi Yakov, Robin,
On Mar 28, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Robin,
>
>> Alvaro,
>>
>> Section 2 of draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case presents as follows:
>>
>>
>> "
>> From an SR viewpoint, we would like to highlight the following
>> requirement: the adjacency segments u
Robin,
> Alvaro,
>
> Section 2 of draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case presents as follows:
>
>
> "
>From an SR viewpoint, we would like to highlight the following
>requirement: the adjacency segments used to support the tunnels T1
>and T2 MUST NOT benefit from local protection
Alvaro,
> Hi!
>
> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
>
> Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft
> by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
>
> Some additional background: We had issued a call for adoption for
>
Hi Yakov,
>> The reality of the industry is that we have both dataplanes so
>> it's obvious that we may want to provide similar functionalities
>> for both without claiming one technology is the solution for
>> everything.
>
> The reality of the industry is that while we have the MPLS dataplane,
hi stefano,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:50:16PM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
| Hi Yakov,
|
| On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
| > Stefano,
| >
| >> Hi Yakov,
| >>
| >> thanks for your comments. See below.
| >
| > in-line...
| >
| > [clipped...]
| >
| >> The realit
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:42:20PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
| [ ... ]
| So there are two options:
|
| - add minor extensions to IPv6 dataplane which can provide control and
| encapsulation in a very smooth and gradual way for a number of
| applications
those are by no means "minor extensions"
Hi Hannes,
> since most v6 hardware implementations i am familiar with, do not have
> support for parsing SRH processing, what you are suggesting here
> *is* a migration to a different dataplane.
+
> those are by no means "minor extensions" - those are "major, intrusive
> changes which often requi
Hi Hannes,
On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi stefano,
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:50:16PM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
> | Hi Yakov,
> |
> | On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> | > Stefano,
> | >
> | >> Hi Yakov,
> | >>
> | >> thanks for yo
On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:42:20PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> | [ ... ]
> | So there are two options:
> |
> | - add minor extensions to IPv6 dataplane which can provide control and
> | encapsulation in a very smooth and gradual way for a n
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
| Hi Hannes,
|
| > since most v6 hardware implementations i am familiar with, do not have
| > support for parsing SRH processing, what you are suggesting here
| > *is* a migration to a different dataplane.
| +
| > those are by no means
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:53:18PM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
|
| On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
|
| > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:42:20PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
| > | [ ... ]
| > | So there are two options:
| > |
| > | - add minor extensions to IPv6 datapl
22 matches
Mail list logo
