Hi Bruno,
Many thanks for your thoughts. Yes, in draft-varga-spring-preof-sid, it's a
design choice to include
the Sequence Number in the IPv6 destination address. I agree, that its impacts
have to be discussed
more detailed in the draft's future updates.
1, ECMP hashing
There is one more very
Hi,
I support the adoption of this draft. Interworking with MPLS is an important
piece of work for SRv6 deployment that needs to be standardized.
Yao
Original
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
To: SPRING WG ;
Date: 2024年07月11日 21:28
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
draft-agrawal-spri
Hi Bruno,
I support adoption.
Regards,
Ruediger
Original
Dear WG:
This message starts a three-week adoption call for
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking, ending on August/1rst.
(The third week is to account for the busy IETF week.)
>From the Abstract:
This document describes SRv6 and
Hello,
I support WG adoption of this draft.
Thanx,
Jags
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 9:27 AM
To: SPRING WG
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking
Dear WG:
This message starts a three-week adoption call for
draf
Dear WG:
As I am sure you are aware, a publication request for
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression has been sent to me as the responsible
AD for the SPRING WG. As a contributor to this document, it is necessary that I
recuse myself from the publication process and I have therefore asked Gunt
Hi Bala'zs,
Thanks for your answer.
Makes sense. Good point that for non "strict' detnet uses cases, the PREOF-SID
may be hidden in the SRH for most of the way. (at the expense of requiring an
SRH even if uSID/NEXT may possibly have avoided it given PREOF-SID requirement
for "only" 48 bits of A
