Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi WG, Support the adoption of this draft. However I think some text should be added to explain it's interaction with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments. Authors, If you prefer, I can provide some text for your perusal. Thanks and regards, -Pushpasis On T

[spring] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-02.txt

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 : Anycast Segments in MPLS based Segment Routing Authors : Pushpasis Sarkar Hannes Gredler

Re: [spring] 答复: 答复: 答复: Anycast segments and context-specific label spaces

Hi Chengli, Once again please see answer inline On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Chengli (Distance) wrote: > Hi Pushpasis, > > > > Thank you for your answer, now I understand the reason of it. Please read > detailed reply inline. > > > > > > *发件人:*

Re: [spring] 答复: 答复: Anycast segments and context-specific label spaces

d it all. > > > > But I still have some questions. Please find them inline. > > > > > > *发件人:* Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:pushpasis.i...@gmail.com] > *发送时间:* 2017年8月9日 23:31 > *收件人:* Chengli (Distance) > *主题:* Re: 答复: [spring] Anycast segments and context-speci

Re: [spring] Anycast segments and context-specific label spaces

Hi Sasha, Thanks a lot for taking time to read the document and providing the much appreciated comments. Please find some comments inline. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have read the draft >

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

there is no solution available > to support optimized loosed path per plane with *no fallback* to > alternative plane if the plane is partitioned. > > Thanks > > Arkadiy > > > > *From:* Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:pushpasis.i...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

hpasis > Rgds > Shraddha > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:42 PM > To: Pushpasis Sarkar > Cc: Shraddha Hegde ; spring@ietf.org; > arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com > Sub

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

Hi Authors, First I must admit that I have not read the entire draft in details... But from the abstract it seems that for the problem that this draft is trying to address, a similar problem is already addressed in the Segment Routing Problem Statement and Use-Case document (RFC 7855, section 3.3

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

+1 Thanks and regards, -Pushpasis On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi, > > I have read the document and support publication. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 1/27/17, 6:05 AM, "spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" > wrote: > > >Hello Working Group, > > > >This email start

Re: [spring] [mpls] WG adoption requested for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

Hi Martin, Thanks a lot for the follow up :) I have uploaded draft-ietf-spring-anycast-segments-00. Best Regards, -Pushpasis On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Martin Vigoureux < martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote: > WG, > > this document is now adopted. > Authors, please republish as draft-ietf-

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

Hi John, I support WG adoption as an author. Personally I know a couple of operators who are looking forward to some interesting applications of anycast segments with SPRING. Hence adopting this document certainly makes sense. On IPR front, I am not aware of any IPR so far. Thanks and Regar

Re: [spring] WG Adoption for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

Hi Chairs, A gentle request once more to start the WG adoption call for this draft. Thanks and regards, Pushpasis On Friday, 13 May 2016, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: > Hi Chairs, > > We have presented this draft in IETF-93 and IETF-94 and have received > quite a good amount of int

[spring] WG Adoption for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

Hi Chairs, We have presented this draft in IETF-93 and IETF-94 and have received quite a good amount of interests in it. Also the draft seems to be stable for quite a time and the authors fill that it is in good shape for WG adoption. Hence request you to consider initiating the WG Adoption

[spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-02.txt

2016 16:29:33 -0700 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Martin Horneffer , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler , Clarence Filsfils , Bruno Decraene , Stefano Previdi A new version of I-D, draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Hannes Gredler and

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

Hi All, Without trying to drag myself into any controversial discussion, just wanted to remind everyone, that we have already discussed on this list, that there are use cases (e.g. Data-centers) where we need non-overlapping per-protocol SRGBs to simplify SID-Index-Space management. Consideri

Re: [spring] IETF 94 agenda topics

Hi Bruno and John, I have submitted the next version of draft-psarkar-spring-npls-anycast-segment. Would like to present an update in TEF-94 WG meeting. Request you to provide a slot for the same. Thanks and Regards, -Pushpasis On 10/5/15, 1:31 PM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-01.txt

eview the document and provide your comments and feedback. Thanks -Pushpasis On 10/12/15, 11:06 AM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-01.txt >has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted

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

Hi Peter, On 10/9/15, 4:01 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >there is other side of the coin too. The more complexity you add, more >difficult will it be to develop, deploy, maintain and support. So you >need to balance it with the gain you get. [Pushpasis] I think principal-wise we are saying the

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

Hi Peter, On 10/9/15, 2:58 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 10/9/15 12:33 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 10/9/15, 11:34 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Pushpasis, >>> >>

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

Hi Peter, On 10/9/15, 11:34 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >>> >>> Node N1 in area 1 advertises prefix P1 with SID X. ABR1 advertises P1 to >>> area 0. >>> Node N2 in area 2 advertises prefix P2 with SID X, ABR2 advertises P2 to >>> area 0. >>> >>> Node 3 in area 0 get these two pre

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

HI Peter, On 10/9/15, 10:10 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 10/8/15 18:41 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> >> >> On 10/8/15, 6:03 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >> >>> how do you envi

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

Some corrections inline On 10/8/15, 9:59 PM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" wrote: >Hi Les, > > > >On 10/8/15, 8:51 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: > >>Pushpasis - >> >>Not all conflicts are intra-area - so your respo

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

Hi Les, On 10/8/15, 8:51 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: >Pushpasis - > >Not all conflicts are intra-area - so your response does not cover all cases. [Pushpasis] I did not get the above statement. But essentially I meant that in a given area if the same index is originated (and not re-

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

refix should be re-advertised.. But prefix-sid sub-tlv should not be propagated… Thanks -Pushpasis > >Ahmed > > >On 10/8/2015 6:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> >> >> On 10/8/15, 6:03 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >>

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

Hi Peter, On 10/8/15, 6:03 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >how do you envision to find out the node originating a prefix in case of >inter-area prefixe? [Pushpasis] The ABR on the originating area/level should be able to detect the anomaly like other nodes in the same area/level and block re-adv

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

HI Stefano, From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:31 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar Cc: Robert Raszuk, Hannes Gredler, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", Isis-wg, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" Subject: Re: [spring] [

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

Hi Bruno, From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:43 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Cc: Hannes Gredler, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", Isis-wg, Imtiy

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

Hi Robert, From: mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:50 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar Cc: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)", Hannes Gredler, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", Isis-wg, "Clarence Filsf

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

Hi Bruno, From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:43 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Cc: Hannes Gredler, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", Isis-wg, Imtiy

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

Hi Stefano, From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:05 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, Imtiyaz Mohammad Cc: "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)", Hannes Gredler, Isis-wg, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] H

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

Hi imtiyaz, Thanks for bringing this to the working groups attention. Please find some comments inline. Thanks -Pushpasis From: Isis-wg on behalf of Imtiyaz Mohammad Date: Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:44 PM To: Isis-wg, "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [Isis-wg] Handling sa

Re: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Hi Anil, Inline again From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 8:56 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, Gaurav agrawal, Alexander Vainshtein Cc: "m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>", "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"

Re: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Hi Anil, From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:17 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, Gaurav agrawal, Alexander Vainshtein Cc: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", "m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>", Vinod Kumar S

Re: [spring] [SPRING] Query related to SR Architecture

Hi Gaurav, Looks like you are asking the routers to forward looking at the second innermost label and not the topmost label. This does NOT fit into the MPLS architecture. I am not sure it fits SR-IPV6 architecture or not, but I doubt. Looks like your requirement is that each node on shortest pa

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/26/15, 9:09 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Do we really want to create all this? Does the gain we would get with >per topo/algo SRGB justify all this, especially given that the gain is >not functional, but rather operational and fairly limited? [Pushpasis] Forgive my pestering ag

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Les, On 8/26/15, 8:49 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: >Pushpasis - > >> -Original Message- >> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pushpasis Sarkar >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:44 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 8:04 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, Robert Raszuk Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)", "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>", "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

hane.litkow...@orange.com >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:25 AM >> To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; Peter Psenak >> (ppsenak); Eric Rosen; SPRING WG >> Subject: Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain >> >> Hi

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:38 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar, Robert Raszuk Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)", "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>", "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

egarding encoding nothing is impossible (as example a new subTLV can be >created ensuring backward compatibility). >I would say let's first have a consensus of what is good to do independently >of the encoding. > >Best Regards, > >-Original Message- >From: Pushpa

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Les, On 8/26/15, 7:13 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: >[Les:] Topology specific SRGBs requires a specification change for the IGPs. >The new advertisements are NOT backwards compatible w existing >implementations. So we cannot simply say "do what you please". >Peter has repeatedly

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

erg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 3:19 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)", "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>", "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>", Pushpasis Sarkar, Eric Rosen S

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

-Pushpasis From: mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 4:44 PM To: Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> Cc: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" mailto:spring@ietf.or

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, Sure. I will let the operators on the list to decide if this needed. No more nagging from my side :) Thanks -Pushpasis On 8/20/15, 4:43 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 8/20/15 11:20 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >&g

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/19/15, 6:15 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >I'm not sure we want to advertise redundant data to allow more >configuration flexibility. From both architecture and encoding >perspective it's preferable to pick single approach. And it looks like >to me one has been picked already by both

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/19/15, 5:25 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 8/19/15 13:13 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Some corrections/additions in my response earlier… >> >> On 8/19/15, 3:47 PM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" >>

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Some corrections/additions in my response earlier… On 8/19/15, 3:47 PM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Peter, On 8/19/15, 3:27 PM, "Peter Psenak"

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/19/15, 3:27 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 8/19/15 10:43 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 8/19/15, 1:22 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >> >>> Stephane, >>> >>> there are

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

>>algorithm would be painful ... Adding a new index value is like >>assigning a new prefix but here we want to use the same prefix. >> >> Stephane >> >> -Original Message- >> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pushpas

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/19/15, 12:01 PM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: >SR protocol extensions clearly do - they advertise MTID with the prefix >SID, not with SRGB. > [Pushpasis] Do you mean that a separate index per topology is mandatory? That won¹t be a good idea in my opinion. Operators SHOULD have flexibilit

Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain

Hi Peter, On 8/18/15, 9:50 PM, "spring on behalf of Peter Psenak" wrote: >Hi Eric, > >please see inline: > > >On 8/18/15 17:18 , Eric C Rosen wrote: >> I've been following the "Modeling SRGB Configuration for >> draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang" thread on this mailing list. I think this >> discussion

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

Hi Les, Sure. However I am more interested in the prevention than the cure. But I agree that a cure is needed as well. Thanks -Pushpasis From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:18 AM To: Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psa

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

Hi Rabah, Totally agree to your point. And that is why IMO, the configuration module on any router MUST NOT allow any of the per-protocol SRGBs to overlap. All the per-protcol SRGBs MUST be non-overlapping. Thanks -Pushpasis From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "rabah.gu

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

tworks. [Pushpasis] I am fine with a instance-level SRGB range config knob as well. In fact that is what I suggested in ISIS YANG design disucssion meeting few months back. My suggestion was on the same lines as what Acee mentioned in his mail (protocol-specific config overriding the instance-leve

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

Hi Acee, On 8/3/15, 4:11 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >Hi Pushpasis, > >On 8/3/15, 6:13 AM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" > wrote: > >>Hi Les, >> >>On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: >> &

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

Hi Les, On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: >What is more problematic is supporting multiple labels for the same >prefix - which is one of the consequences of the per-protocol SRGB >approach. I am not saying this is unsupportable - just that it is a more >difficult problem to s

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

My strong preference is Option 2. It simplifies migration and network consolidation usecases. Also it is very relevant in MSDC kind of use cases where a single node can be part of two different topologies running two different SR protocol. Index-management becomes much easier in each of the use

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

Support. On 7/22/15, 3:17 PM, "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-ldp-interop. Please >reply to the list with your comments, including although not

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

Hi Acee, From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:37 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> Cc: Shraddha Hegde mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>&

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

Hi Acee, From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:18 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> Cc: Shraddha Hegde mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>&

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

Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM To: Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>" mailto:stephane

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

orange.com>" mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>, Uma Chunduri mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" mailto:mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" mailto:sprin

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

com>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Shraddha Hegde mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>, Uma Chunduri mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, "Aissaoui, Mustaph

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

.@ericsson.com>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" mailto:mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Shraddha Hegde mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>, Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@j

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-00.txt

t-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments >Revision: 00 >Title

Re: [spring] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-spring-sr-yang-01

Sorry. Forgot to mention earlier. I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Thanks -Pushpasis On 7/1/15, 8:15 PM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" wrote: >Support as co-author. > >Thanks >-Pushpasis > >On 6/29/15, 10:51 PM, "spring on behalf of b

Re: [spring] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-spring-sr-yang-01

Support as co-author. Thanks -Pushpasis On 6/29/15, 10:51 PM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-litkowski-spring-sr-yang-01 as a working group item. >"YANG Data Model for Segment Routing " >https:

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] latest update of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions

Hi Stefano, As much I understand the LDP mapping server functionality the Label-Binding TLV shall be used to map a SR Node-SID-Index with a FEC originated by SR-incapable node. Now in regular SPRING domain a SR-capable node does not generate one Node-SID-Index for a given node address (loopback)

Re: [spring] [Isis-wg] some questions for SR-ISIS

Hi Deccan, On 4/22/15, 4:23 PM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" wrote: > > >Hi Deccan, > >On Apr 20, 2015, at 6:03 AM, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote: >> >> hi Stefano and other SR-ISIS authors, >> >> I have some questions when study >>draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-03 >> >> 1) for Pre

Re: [spring] SPRING chairs

Hi Bruno, Many many congratulations to you for the new role!!! Regards -Pushpasis From: Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 9:46 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: Bruno Decraene mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>