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 of the
IETF.
Title : IPv6 SPRING Use Cases
Authors : John Brzozowski
John Leddy
Hi Martin,
Support, as a co-author.
r.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 at 12:30 Edward Crabbe wrote:
> Hi Martin;
>
> Support as co-author.
>
> cheers,
>-ed
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
> martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> This email starts a 2-w
Hi Martin;
Support as co-author.
cheers,
-ed
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hello Working Group,
>
> This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06 [1].
>
> ¤ Please read the document
Hi Martin, Stefano,
>It seems to me this could easily become an endless discussion again. People
>seem to have very different views on it. Thus I'm not sure whether it would be
>suitable for this document.
Sorry, that was not at all my intention to get into an endless discussion.
Being an SR MP
Stefano,
This is the document that someone interested in SR from and an MPLS
perspective may well start with. A discussion on the issue of label
stack depth and the practical constrains is thus very much in scope. The
fact that you had a debate in the past immediately points to the need
for a
I agree with Martin,
I think we have discussed this at length and I wouldn't re-spin the debate (and
come to the same conclusion again and again). The manageability section of the
architecture draft mention that a node may want to signal its stack
capabilities and we have igp extensions for tha
I agree.
Whilst, as indicated later in the thread, some of the cases studied so
far may only need a single label, this is a powerful general purpose
technology that will be used for many purposes that have not yet been
considered. Some discussion of the implication of the label stack limit
i
I also support the document.
Regards, Ruediger
-Original Message-
From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 12:05
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-ro
Hello Uma,
what kind of label depth discussion are you thinking of?
It seems to me this could easily become an endless discussion again.
People seem to have very different views on it. Thus I'm not sure
whether it would be suitable for this document.
BTW:
For my needs, bandwidth optimizatio
Support
-Original Message-
From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 12:05
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06
Hello Working Group,
Thi
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-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06 [1].
¤ Please read the document if you haven't read t
11 matches
Mail list logo
