Hi All,
Section 4.1.21:
In control plane uA SID is advertised with value 2001:db8:0:0N00:FNAJ::
in FIB entry it is represent with value 2001:db8:0:FNAJ::/64
Note: From a formal viewpoint, a uA SID of node N is defined by the
local FIB entry B:uA/64 of N (i.e. this definition is independent from
Sure. I'll submit the name changed and will close few other comments including
the ones you mentioned received during adoption call in the -01 version.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:47 PM
To: spring@ietf.org; draft
Hi authors, SPRING WG.
There is support for this Informational document and no blocking objections so
we have a new WG document.
Authors, please resubmit as a WG document.
In the next (-01) revision, please include a section (or at least text)
discussing to the applicability of the protection a
Hi authors, all,
As an individual contributor, I have two non-blocking comments.
1) I feel that the terminology “node protection” in the name of the draft
could be misleading.
“Node Protection” is already used in [LFA] and [RLFA]. It refers to a property
of the alternate path avoiding
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 : YANG Data Model for SRv6 Base and Static
Authors : Kamran Raza
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 : YANG Data Model for Segment Routing Policy
Authors : Kamran Raza
Sure. We can make this editorial change on the next update.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 09 September 2020 13:01
To: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Re:[spring] [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-
Jeff, Bruno, Martin and all,
I definitely concur with Jeff: Drop should be the default MUST-to-implement
behavior.
What's more, it looks to me as the only possible behavior if the problematic
label is not BoS.
And even if popping of the problematic BoS label is allowed by local
configuration,
I’m with Bruno here, and the spec is quite clear on the behavior expected
(implementors, please speak up).
Given variability and interdependencies in use cases, I’d say, drop should be
(and de-jure it is) the default behavior, and if someone wants their vendor of
choice to implement a knob to ch
Hi Karthik,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Pablo.
From: spring On Behalf Of G. Sri Karthik Goud
Sent: miércoles, 26 de agosto de 2020 0:30
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: Swamy SRK
Subject: [spring] PSP and USP uN Flavors
Folks,
In draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid, a uN represents an
i
Hi Ketan and PSF,
Yes, I mean it may be better to add a new section to describe the SRv6 SID
structure TLV, like section 8, instead of 7.3.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:28 PM
To: ketant=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.o
Hi Ketan, Cheng,
Thanks for your reply.
I have get clear answer to my questions.
The third question is meaningless once the typo is corrected.
I also suggest that "structure TLV" can not be palced under section 7, as Cheng
suggested.
Regards,
PSF
原始邮件
发件人：Ketan
Hi PSF and Cheng,
Please check inline below.
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 07 September 2020 09:49
To: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03
Hi PSF and Ketan,
IMHO, the SRv6 SID
13 matches
Mail list logo
