Sasha,
My problem with this response that, from my POV, you implicitly define two
different flavors of the Replication SID:
* One of these flavors MUST be instantiated both in the Replication Node
and in the Downstream nodes, so that it CONTINUEs in each specific Replication
Branch
* T
Greetings:
I will be tallying the results for the extended week late today. If anyone
wishes to comment on the adoption, please do so today.
Sue Hares
From: Idr On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 14 October 2019 23:43
To: 'idr wg' ; 'SPRING WG List'
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption:
draft-
FYI: 'IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)' has been approved by the IESG
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header/
--Bruno
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:47 PM
To: IETF-Anno
Yes – thanks for the reminder that it expired 😊
If I understand your questions correctly, a replication SID can have the
CONTINUE/NEXT semantic at the same time. A node could be a “bud node” – a leaf
and a replication node at the same time. This is unique to multicast.
Jeffrey
From: Alexander
Rishabh,
FYI, the MVPN Aggregation Label draft has been updated just now.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)
Cc: spring@ietf.o
Rishabh,
Again lots of thanks for a prompt and very informative response.
My problem with this response that, from my POV, you implicitly define two
different flavors of the Replication SID:
- One of these flavors MUST be instantiated both in the Replication
Node and in the Downstream
