Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

c.dtag.de>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY Wim - From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

result in the “best behavior” is like playing the lottery. Why would we want to do this? I certainly do not. Les From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:18 PM To: Fedyk, Don; bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.dec

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

n be relatively easily migrated to a non-conflicting range and a configuration model that does not make it easy to accidentally create SRGB conflicts into an existing network. Not sure I follow your option 2 but option 1 can be easy to determine winners and losers (not right and wrong ☺ ). Ch

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

If so, this point is common to all options being discussed. I may be missing some of your points. This thread is about inconsistency in the SRGB ranges advertised by _one_ node. I’m not sure to see your “startup scenario” nor the “merge network scenario”. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Bru

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

Could you please elaborate? e.g. what do you mean by ”who” and “wrong” on what? I could see multiple interpretations, but it would probably be faster if you elaborate by yourself. Thanks -- Bruno From:spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Tuesday, January

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB INCONSISTENCY

My main question on the proposal is how do we tell who is right and who is wrong? From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Martin Horneffer mailto:m...@nic.dtag.de>> Date: Tuesday 5 January 2016 at 13:05 To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>, "spring@ietf.o

Re: [spring] Minutes

Bruno, I am ok with this On 20/11/15 07:11, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: >Hi Folks, > >Minutes have been slightly updated following some comments and after reviewing >the video. > >Please find enclosed the diff for review. > >In particular, Wim, Les, could you please review the change

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

I also don’t see the big value add on this draft from what we have. Given it introduces backward compatibility issues from existing implementation/deployments I don’t see why we should proceed with this work in the WG. On 09/11/15 10:11, "spring on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:

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

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 we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been >requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop. Please reply >to the list

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

I tend to agree that proposal 2 is for migration, so would vote for option 2. From: spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar Date: Friday 31 July 2015 07:37 To: Stephane Litkowski, "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang

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

support On 22/07/15 15:15, "spring on behalf of 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-central-epe. Please reply >to the list with your comments, including although n

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

support On 22/07/15 15:15, "spring on behalf of 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 limi

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

support On 22/07/15 15:17, "mpls on behalf of 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-ldp-interop. Please reply >to the list with your comments, including although not

Re: [spring] [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

point, in our case, today we have up to 15 strict hops for TE >tunnels. >When we will introduce interdomain, it will bring more. > >-Original Message----- >From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:45 >To: LIT

Re: [spring] [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

How many hops do we want to support in these scenario’s realistically? This might help in determining the options On 12/01/15 09:54, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" wrote: >Hi Bruno, > >Using TTL may work or not. Backup path does not mean that you will >defacto have more hops. Metric of backup p

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

I am not aware of any other IPR related to this draft On 17/10/14 22:23, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" wrote: >On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" >wrote: > >>IPR is in the process of being disclosed. > >The IPR was filed on Oct/7, but it was done against >draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segmen

Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

r data forwarding, by default the label represents shortest path for the given prefix/node? If I use different algorithm for the same label/SID, I must notify which algorithm I used to for this label/SID while constructing label stack for specific path? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderi

Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

ing is wrong . Whether we can use multiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [sp

Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be used for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different algorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem mailto:veerendranath...@huawei.com>> Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

I support adopting the draft as co-author. The draft describes the architecture well From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:01 To: "spring@ietf.org" mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-rout.

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

I’m not aware of undisclosed IPR. From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:07 To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-m...@tools.ietf.org" mailto:draft-filsfils-spring-seg

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

I support adoption as a co-author. The document is complete to be adopted as WG doc From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:07 To: "spring@ietf.org" mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin

Re: [spring] Segment Routing Drafts

These documents have been going through multiple reviews and are ready to ask for WG adoption afais. On 20/05/14 11:00, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" wrote: >Dear WG members and co-chairs, > >after the adoption of draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement I'd like to >submit >to your consideration the