Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

Hi Sasha, Thanks for your prompt response! Section 2.1.1 discusses some potential directions for Path segment ID assignment and distribution, there are several ways that can be used. IGP based solution is good for the case where more nodes within the domain needs to learn the Path Segment ID.

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Jim, --James N Guichard 2018年3月14日(星期三) 03:00Francois Clad (fclad) ; adr...@olddog.co.uk mpls ; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi John, *However, early adopters were concerned about the availability of hardware NSH implementations and asked us to include the option of using an MPLS label stack to carry the [SPI, SI], which we did.* Are you saying that there is more service function hardware out there in the market which

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Robert, Comments inline. Yours Irrespectively, John From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:13 PM To: John E Drake Cc: James N Guichard ; Francois Clad (fclad) ; adr...@olddog.co.uk; mpls ; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org S

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi John, There is one point which I am missing in this discussion ... why we are over and over duplicating ways to solve the same problem. Is there some sort of starvation of the problems to be solved ? Or is there an issue of "technology not invented here must be bad" ? You admit that draft-farr

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Jim, Excellent point. We thought a context label was crucial in order to achieve scalability (2**40) bits. A single 20 bit globally unique SFI identifier didn’t seem to be practical to us. Yours Irrespectively, John From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James N Guichard Sen

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi Francois, One comment below .. From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Clad (fclad) Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:27 PM To: adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: mpls ; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] [sfc] [spring] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc i

Re: [spring] [sfc] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi Adrian, On 9 Mar 2018, at 10:17, Adrian Farrel mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: I, too, hope we can move to a technical discussion of the differences between the proposals The issue is that, from a technical point of view, there is no difference between section 6 (MPLS Segment Routing)

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

Uma, Lots of thanks for bringing the draft in question to my attention. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com -Original Message- From: Uma Ch

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

Sorry, minor correction: 3GPP SA2 ==> 3GPP CT4 And it helps most of the proposals including SRH, SR-MPLS, LISP, ILA (?) .. Best, -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:52 AM To: Alexander Vain

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

We recently published a 00 version, undergoing an update to be published during IETF week (presented @ LSR WG). It addresses label stack reduction for any non-shortest path LSPs including an optional path traffic statistics. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg03162.html It w

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

Mach, Lots of thanks for a prompt and very encouraging response! One more question: Do you and your colleagues plan to define the mechanism for distribution of the Path Segment ID in IGP? (Usually such mechanisms are defined in dedicated drafts separately for OSPF and ISIS, but, at least, it sh

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01

Hi Sasha, Many thanks for your valuable comments! Please see my responses inline... > > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander > Vainshtein > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:44 PM > To: draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org > Cc: spring@ietf.org; Shell Nakas