On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 07:47 Sander Steffann, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > We have published a new update to
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. This revision simplifies the
> counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer header processing as per [2]
> and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3
Hi,
> We have published a new update to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
> This revision simplifies the counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer
> header processing as per [2] and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3].
I still oppose the segment popping flavours in section
Hi Greg,
As per your feedback we’ve removed the reference to the OAM draft from the
document.
We’ve also removed the counters 2 and 3, keeping in this document the only
counter specific to this document.
These changes have already been incorporated into revision 10. Many thanks for
the review.
Hi all,
We have published a new update to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
This revision simplifies the counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer
header processing as per [2] and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3].
Thank you for the review and feedback.
Cheers,
Pablo.
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 WG of the
IETF.
Title : SRv6 Network Programming
Authors : Clarence Filsfils
Pablo Cam
Hi Group,
From carriers' point view, the application scenario for the Generalize SRv6 SID
is valid. It can provide some important functions as follows.
1. In the process of network evolution, there are cases where IPv6 networks
and IPv4 networks coexist. An SRv6 packet may cross IPv4 networking
Zafar, authors,
I think most of what you done is fine. There are still somr things
to do, e.g. align with 7322, rewrite the Abstract and work with the
authors of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header to make their IANA
considerations are correct from your point of view.
Then this
The
