Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Support the WG adoption. Regards, Aditya > On Jul 30, 2020, at 8:24 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > Authors of draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths [1] have asked > for WG adoption. > > Please indicate your support, comments, or objection, for adopt

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi Pushpasis, Thanks for the review and comments. Pls check if the below text looks good. " draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments proposes a mechanism to allow the use of anycast SIDs in a network where all devices do not share a common SRGB. draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments utilizes

Re: [spring] Spring protection - determining applicability

There are, as far as I can tell, a number of ways to address this family of related questions. What struck me, and prompted the starting question, was that none of them were spelled out. I see lots of interesting ideas / proposals. Some of them are compatible with others. Some are not. It wou

Re: [spring] Spring protection - determining applicability

Hi Joel and all: I think node protected is used when the SLA of a path cannot be quickly repaired. E2E detection cannot be deployed in some scenarios. As a result, the faulty path cannot be repaired at the headend. To prevent SR policy from bypassing Service Sid, if the Per Sid forwardi

Re: [spring] Spring protection - determining applicability

Hi all, I am still not sure that the problem of bypass going thru undesirable links/nodes exists in the case of topological SIDs. AFAIK, Facility Protection in RSVP-TE FRR (RFC 4090) has been successfully deployed for many years before SR-MPLS has been intro