Re: [spring] [mpls] What's the consensus among co-chairs and ADs regarding the better place for the SR-MPLS-over-IP work?

I agree. I remember I mentioned something similar at the mic during the SPRING WG meeting in the IETF in Singapore The draft proposes a mechanism that allows forwarding SR-MPLS packets through a sub-domain that only understand pure IP. The draft suggests using MPLS in UDP tunneling (which

Re: [spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12.txt

- and the conflict resolution draft has expired. Thank you! r. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <basha...@cisco.com <mailto:basha...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Here is a new version of the draft. This version has non-trivial changes from the previo

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12.txt

Hi Alvaro sorry for the late reply. I am including the questions and comments in the link [1] and the reply to each one of them See "Ahmed" underneath each question and comment Q1. Why is this document on the Standards Track? From the Introduction: “This drafts describes how Segment

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) (basha...@cisco.com <mailto:basha...@cisco.com> ) wrote: Ahmed: Hi! How are you? ... The main questions/concerns that I have related to this document is not just for the authors, but for the Shepherd and the Chairs too. Q1

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

I just checked the IPR section in ietf.org. The IPR disclosure for this draft can be found in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls=draft== Thanks Ahmed On 10/30/2017 11:12 AM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote: Sorry for the late reply

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

Sorry for the late reply and thanks a lot for the thorough review. We have just uploaded version 11 of the draft. See replies inline “#Ahmed” to your comments Thanks Ahmed From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

Hi Also support as a co-author Ahmed On 1/30/2017 12:58 AM, Martin Horneffer wrote: Hello, support from me as co-author and operator. Bets regards, Martin Am 27.01.17 um 12:05 schrieb Martin Vigoureux: Hello Working Group, This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on

Re: [spring] IPR for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls prior to WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. Thanks Ahmed On 9/9/2016 4:57 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote: Authors and Contributors, it seems that we are missing answers to the IPR question from a good number of people: Authors: Clarence, Ahmed, Martin, and Edward

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

Support. Very much needed Ahmed On 4/14/2016 12:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although

Re: [spring] Implementation Report on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop

Hi Robin The mapping server is already implemented. And it is not that complex at all As for the support of inter-AS option "C", there are two solutions (1) "draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-01" provides a way to use the prefix-SID of one address for another one. So refering to the

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-bowers-spring-adv-per-algorithm-label-blocks-02.txt

Thanks a lot Les for the elaborate explanation One small addition to what Les mentioned. The functionality proposed by the draft can be achieved by having a base prefix-SID index and then configuring an offset (instead of an SRGB) for each topology/algorithm pair from that base prefix-SID

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] Handling same SID mapped to different prefixes and vice versa cases

if I understand you reply to Peter correctly, does this means that multi-prefix SID should not be leaked outside its originating area? Ahmed On 10/8/2015 6:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: Hi Peter, On 10/8/15, 6:03 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: how do you envision to

Re: [spring] [mpls] working group adoption call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop

Support as an author Not aware of undisclosed IPR Ahmed On 9/23/2015 9:59 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: Support and not aware of IPR related to this draft On 22/07/15 15:17, "mpls on behalf of John G.Scudder" wrote: Dear WG, As

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

Totally agree We expect lots of applications and use cases to come. Let's close this document Ahmed On 9/25/2015 1:22 AM, Rob Shakir wrote: On 24 September 2015 at 09:09:00, Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) (anil...@huawei.com) wrote: Hi Rob, Thanks for reverting back the mail. If

Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

One of the objective of the YANG Model is to manage devices. Hence the flexibility of having a separate SRGB per protocol is necessary, at least for operational reasons Ahmed On 7/29/2015 2:01 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: Stephane -- What is the requirement to have a per-protocol

Re: [spring] working group adoption call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-msdc

strongly support Thanks Ahmed On 7/22/2015 6:15 AM, John G.Scudder wrote: Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-msdc. Please reply to the list with your comments, including although not limited