I've been noodling on these issues for a couple of days now (many thanks to
all who've been trying to help me understand), and I'm kinda confused by
how some unicast address semantics could be met (or not met).
Specifically: how can you ping a CSID? It's possible to ping a SID, but I
don't yet see
I support the adoption of CSID draft.
CSID draft defines next and replace behaviors that are consistent with the SRv6
network programming RFC8996.
We've verified the solution with partners in Intel Tofino programmable switch
chipset.
Regards,
Haitao
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:05 AM James Guichard
Dear WG and Chairs,
With multiple vendor implementations and interops. The draft is for SRv6
compression based on the single SRv6 data plane
I strongly support its adoption
Gaurav
Linkedin
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Keyur Patel wrote:
>
> Dear WG and the WG Chairs,
>
> Network progra
With regards to the chair's question, CSID is based on the single SRv6
based data plane. The addition of flavors for SRv6 compression does not
mean the draft is defining multiple data planes. This is because, if we go
with that logic, RFC8986, which is a product of the Spring WG has already
defined
Jim,
Before accepting this document, we might want to discuss why the NEXT-C-SID
behavior and the REPLACE-C-SID behavior are both needed. Even if there are use
cases in which one performs slightly better than the other, it the performance
improvement really worth all of the additional complexit
Tom,
There is a difference between C-SID and the common mobile practice..
Consider an SRv6 domain where:
- The common prefix is 2001:db8::/48
- Each C-SID is 16 bits long
- Node A instantiates the segment 2001:db8:1::/128
The following are all addresses of Node A:
- 2001:db8:2:1::/128
- 20
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:14 PM Ron Bonica
wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> It is much more simple than this.
>
> According to RFC 8200, an IPv6 Destination Address is the “128-bit address of
> the intended recipient of the packet (possibly not the ultimate recipient, if
> a Routing header is present). See
Folks,
It is much more simple than this.
According to RFC 8200, an IPv6 Destination Address is the “128-bit address of
the intended recipient of the packet (possibly not the ultimate recipient, if a
Routing header is present). See [RFC4291] and Section 4.4.”
Therefore, if a packet does not con
With multiple vendors having implemented the solution, I strongly support the
adoption of draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression.
Linda Dunbar
From: spring On Behalf Of Keyur Patel
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 12:48 AM
To: Zafar Ali (zali) ; James Guichard
; SPRING WG
Cc: spring-ch
Hi, all
I support the adoption. CSID is a needed solution for the SRv6 based data
plane.
Best Regards
Zongpeng Du
duzongp...@foxmail.com & duzongp...@chinamobile.com
From: James Guichard
Date: 2021-10-01 22:04
To: SPRING WG
CC: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call f
Hi Chairs & WG,
I support the adoption call. Regarding chair’s note in the email, I would like
to point that CSID is single SRv6 based data plane that defines next and
replace behaviors consistent with the network programming paradigm.
Regards,
Peng Liu(CMCC)
liupeng...@outlook.com
From: J
I support the adoption of the draft by the SPRING WG to continue the
work on it.
The draft adds new flavors to the SR endpoint behaviors for the support
of the SRv6 Segment-List compression in conformance with the RFC 8754
and the RFC 8986.
thanks,
Peter
On 01/10/2021 16:04, James Guichard
Hi SPRING,
>From my understanding, REPLACE-CSID flavor and NEXT-CSID flavor just like PSP,
>USP, USD flavor defined in RFC8986. I cannot treat PSP, USP, USD as different
>data planes. All the SRv6 behaviors will have different data plane behaviors,
>but they are built under the same data plane,
Hi Chairs and WG,
I strongly support the adoption of this draft.
As far as I know, there are already multiple vendors(10+) support CSID and
passed the interoperation test.
I followed the DT for a while. CSID as a SRv6 native solution, shows great
advantages than CRH.
This draft is mature enough
Dear WG
I would like to express support for the WG adoption of the draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
I have been using the SRv6 encapsulation in various applied research projects
at my university and I have mostly experience with the NEXT
15 matches
Mail list logo
