[spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

Hi All, An IP route is advertised to each of its global uSID's in case of algo 0, algo 1 ? For each Global uSID we must advertise ? below TLV/ sub-TLV/ Sub-Sub-TLV. --

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

update the draft. Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:37 PM To: Rajesh M ; spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Rajesh, The three

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 7:23 PM To: Rajesh M ; spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Rajesh, Yes, that is correct. Cheers, Pablo. From

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

Gentle reminder Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 3:56 PM To: spring@ietf.org Subject: draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12 If the uSID length is 16 then function length in case of uA,uDT,uDX must be 16 ? If the uSID length is 32 then function

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

Also section 4.2.1.1 and section 4.2.2.1 Algorithm = 0 (or other) how to mention in BGP. is it a mistake ? Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 3:56 PM To: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid

[spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-12

If the uSID length is 16 then function length in case of uA,uDT,uDX must be 16 ? If the uSID length is 32 then function length in case of uA,uDT,uDX must be 32? Juniper Business Use Only ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mail

Re: [spring] Questions about REPLACEB6 of draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids

Hi PSF, END.REPLACE and END.REPLACEB6 both are different forwarding behaviors. END.REPLACE is forwarding on outgoing interface (after replacing sid). END.REPLACEB6 forwarding involves H.Encaps (after replacing sid). Next version of the draft we will come up with illustrations, that time your qu

Re: [spring] Questions about REPLACEB6 of draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids

Hi Peng, Thanks for the draft acknowledgement. Regarding your question about REPLACE/ REPLACEB6 Why we need DT4/DT6/DT46/ DX6/DX4 sids, they are also " local behavior of the BGP egress speaker". End.DX6 - Decapsulation and IPv6 Cross-Connect. End.DX4: Decapsulation and IPv4 Cross-Connect End.DT

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

uly 22, 2021 3:17 PM To: Rajesh M ; Salih K A Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; b...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07) [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Rajesh, I think there might be some con

[spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986 (Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming)

Hi All, What is the use case for End SID with USD ? Mainly USD Flavor. Apart from TILFA/MLA Decapsulation scenarios (When encapsulation is used at transit PLR). Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only ___ spring mailing list spri

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

return. Resolve BGP next hop for forwarding either by CAR or by SR-policy (in case above is not success). Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 2:25 PM To: Salih K A ; Rajesh M Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Could Authors respond to this ? Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 7:28 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; Rajesh M ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra

Re: [spring] draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02

attribute as well as complete SID2 in SRv6 SID TLV ? Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw) Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 7:10 AM To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M ; Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) ; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: spring

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Nokia - US/Mountain View) Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 7:17 PM To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com Cc: spring@ietf.org; b...@ans.net; Shraddha Hegde ; b...@ietf.org; Srihari S

Re: [spring] draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02

Hi Authors, Please respond. Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 2:24 PM To: Rajesh M ; dh...@cisco.com; swaag...@cisco.com; cfils...@cisco.com; ket...@cisco.com Cc: spring@ietf.org; b...@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Authors, Please respond. Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:36 PM To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; jorge.raba

[spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi All, As per this draft, this is how resolution must work. 1)For Non Intent service Route: if BGP next hop is not reachable return. Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding. 2)For Intent service Route (IGP Flex-Algo first then BGP CAR then SR Policy): BGP next hop is not reachable return. Resolv

Re: [spring] draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02

+bess working group Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 12:38 PM To: dh...@cisco.com; swaag...@cisco.com; cfils...@cisco.com; ket...@cisco.com Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02 [External Email. Be cautious of

[spring] draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02

Hi All, Have below query on BGP CAR draft section "2.9.2.3 SRv6 SID TLV" 1) why we are using Prefix-SID attribute ? The idea was omitting BGP Prefix SID Attribute from the color-aware routes for better BGP packing efficiency. 2) Which SID we are advertising in BGP Prefix SID Attribute ? Tha

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Thanks Ketan, its very clear now. Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 1:19 PM To: Rajesh M ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; jorge.raba...@nokia.com Cc: spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

(ketant) Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:53 AM To: Rajesh M ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; jorge.raba...@nokia.com Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: RE: SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07) [External

[spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi All, As per the draft "When the BGP route received at an ingress PE is colored with an extended color community and is being steered over a valid SRv6 Policy associated with SID list as described in Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Re: [spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services

color 128, since above allocation is based upon per vrf) Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:35 PM To: Rajesh M ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; sprin

[spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services

Hi All, As per draft "When providing best-effort connectivity to the egress PE, the ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an outer IPv6 header where the destination address is the SRv6 Service SID associated with the related BGP route update." If we allocate SRv6 Service SID per-VRF then how to

Re: [spring] SRV6 OAM (USP SID)

Thanks Zafar. Got the clarification. Juniper Business Use Only From: Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:34 AM To: Rajesh M ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Cc: G. Sri Karthik Goud ; Deepti Rathi ; SPRING WG ; Zafar Ali (zali) Subject: Re: SRV6 OAM

Re: [spring] SRV6 OAM (USP SID)

Please respond. Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:06 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Cc: G. Sri Karthik Goud ; SPRING WG ; Deepti Rathi Subject: [spring] SRV6 OAM (USP SID

[spring] SRV6 OAM (USP SID)

When ingress pings a USP SID, at the egress below code is executed. 4.16.2. USP: Ultimate Segment Pop of the SRH The SRH processing of the End, End.X and End.T behaviors are modified: the instruct

Re: [spring] PSP and USP uN Flavors

In this case, you wouldn't process the SRH until you process every uSID in the uSID container. Do I have this much right? Perfect So, if any uSID in the container specified the PSP or USP flavor, you would delete an SRH that has not yet been processed. PSP or USP wont come into picture untill D

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-07

PSP & USD flavors ? 42 | 0x002A | uN | [This.ID] | 51 | 0x0033 | uA | [This.ID] | Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 6:21 PM To: Rajesh M ; Peter Psenak ; SPRING WG Subject: RE: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring

Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-07

nt: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:36 PM To: Rajesh M ; SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-07 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Rajesh, On 10/09/2020 03:38, Rajesh M wrote: > Hi All, > > *Section 4.1.21:* > > ** > > In contro

[spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-07

Hi All, Section 4.1.21: In control plane uA SID is advertised with value 2001:db8:0:0N00:FNAJ:: in FIB entry it is represent with value 2001:db8:0:FNAJ::/64 Note: From a formal viewpoint, a uA SID of node N is defined by the local FIB entry B:uA/64 of N (i.e. this definition is independent from

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04

Can we incorporate this in draft. Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 5:57 PM To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; zhuangshun...@huawei.com

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04

OULD perform reachability check for the SRv6 Service SID in addition to the BGP next-hop reachability procedures. Juniper Business Use Only From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 8:43 AM To: gdawra.i...@gmail.com<mailto

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04

Sending it again. Juniper Business Use Only From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 8:43 AM To: gdawra.i...@gmail.com; cfils...@cisco.com; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com; zhuangshun...@huawei.com; jorge.raba...@nokia.com Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject

[spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04

5. BGP based L3 service over SRv6 When the egress PE sets the next-hop to a value that is not covered by the SRv6 Locator from which the SRv6 Service SID is allocated, then the ingress PE SHOULD perform reachability check fo

[spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08 (OSPFv2 flex algo)

Note : Discussion is not about FAPM. For flex algorithm (example take it as 128) OSPF Prefix (For summary/external prefixes), how to get the prefix cost ? there is no prefix cost field in OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV. Currently only way I can see is prefix needs to be advertised in flex algo ze

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05

Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:15 PM To: Parag Kaneriya ; SPRING WG List Cc: cf(mailer list) ; Rajesh M Subject: Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05 Parag, Rajesh, Thanks for your comments and we are happy to have the offline discussions wi

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05

How about adding PSD flavor (Penultimate Segment Decapsulation) ? For TILFA some of the implementation might support Encapsulation Mode rather than insert mode. In such cases PSD favor is of use, where at the Penultimate hop itself we remove both Ipv6 header as well as SRH header added for TILFA

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Then my suggestion is move PSP and USP Flavours to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insert , thanks. Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 9:52 AM To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M ; Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

if we use T.Insert Mode for TI-LFA then PSP and USP Flavours are useful. T.insert mode is deprecated ? if Yes then PSP and USP Flavours also must be deprecated as per me. Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 7:59 AM To: Wang

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

MPLS world PSP will help in avoiding one more lookup at egress for VPN cases. I feel both PSP and USP are not useful in case of SRV6. Juniper Business Use Only From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 6:26 AM To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

ctober 18, 2019 9:26 AM To: Rajesh M ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ; SPRING WG List Cc: Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha Hegde Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 The value of Segment Left field in SRH begin with 0, so [SL]=0 repres

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Thanks Pablo. I have responded for that mail chain. Still not convinced about PSP 😊 Juniper Business Use Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 9:39 PM To: Rajesh M ; SPRING WG List ; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Cc: Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hi Ketan/Peter, I am assuming this is true even in below case "SRv6-Service-SID (END.DT4 SID)is derived from a locator corresponding to flex algorithm ? " Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 6:27 PM To: Rajesh

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

fied by DA" Juniper Business Use Only From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13 PM To: Rajesh M ; SPRING WG List Cc: Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha Hegde Subject: Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 Ra

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Authors of the draft could you please respond ? Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 7:00 AM To: SPRING WG List Cc: Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha Hegde Subject: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 Section3: However, when the received

Re: [spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Authors of the draft could you please respond ? Juniper Business Use Only From: Rajesh M Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 7:16 AM To: SPRING WG List Cc: Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha Hegde Subject: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24 Wanted to know

[spring] 5.2. T.Encaps: Transit with encapsulation in an SRv6 Policy

here S1 must be End SID only, It cannot be End.X ? since forward along the shortest path to S1. 5.2. T.Encaps: Transit with encapsulation in an SRv6 Policy 1. push an IPv6 header with its own SRH (S3, S2, S1; SL=2) 2. set outer IPv6 SA = T and outer IPv6 DA = S1 3. set outer payload len

[spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#page-24

Wanted to know the use case where we only POP the SRH ? 4.16.1. PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH The SRH processing of the End, End.X and End.T behaviors are modified: after the instruction "

[spring] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Section3: However, when the received route is colored with an extended color community 'C' and Next-Hop 'N', and the ingress PE has a valid SRv6 Policy (C, N) associated with SID list [I-D.filsfils- spring-segment-routing-policy], then the effective SR Policy is . When we make effective

[spring] draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-00

Hi, I was looking at < draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-00> and have few comments. 1) As per section 5.2: "(A1::, FC00:0500:0700::)(B:8:D0::; SL=1; NH=4)(X, Y) When 5 receives the packet, 5 matches FC00:0500::/32 in its "My SID Table" and executes the uN behavior " Here l

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Yes its just recommended 😊 Juniper Internal -Original Message- From: Loa Andersson Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:13 AM To: Rajesh M ; Robert Raszuk Cc: cpign...@cisco.com; SPRING WG ; cfils...@cisco.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; Ron Bonica ; rgan...@cisco.com; naiku...@cisco.com; z

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

header Fragment header Authentication header (note 2) Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2) Destination Options header (note 3) Upper-Layer header From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:55 PM To: Rajesh M Cc: cfils...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.com

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

be only ipv6) ? From: Mark Smith Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:15 AM To: Rajesh M Cc: cfils...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.com; naiku...@cisco.com; cpign...@cisco.com; rgan...@cisco.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; SPRING WG ; i...@ietf.org; Peter Psenak Subject: Re: draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

header Fragment header Authentication header (note 2) Encapsulating Security Payload header (note 2) Destination Options header (note 3) Upper-Layer header From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:55 PM To: Rajesh M Cc: cfils...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.com

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

be only ipv6) ? From: Mark Smith mailto:markzzzsm...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:15 AM To: Rajesh M mailto:mraj...@juniper.net>> Cc: cfils...@cisco.com<mailto:cfils...@cisco.com>; z...@cisco.com<mailto:z...@cisco.com>; naiku...@cisco.com<mailto:naiku...@c

Re: [spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Guys in this draft I see that all the example such as ping, traceroute to ipv6 address-> use SRH insertion rather than SRH encapsulation. This is intentionally done to reduce the packet size (since underlying data can be only ipv6) ? Juniper Internal From: Rajesh M Sent: Wednesday, Apri

[spring] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05

Hi All, As per section 8 , END.DT4 can be advertising using ISIS (via END SID format). At SRV6 egress router everything will work fine (Egress router we must configure which END.DT4 SID for which vrf table). But at SRV6 ingress router how to decide which END.DT4 SID to use for which VRF ? Aga

[spring] draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00 (SRv6 BGP based Overlay services)

Hi All, Why we need to set SRv6 Endpoint Behavior to Reserved value 0x ? I was thinking it must be (End.DX4 or End.DT4 or End.DX6 or End.DT6...etc) SRv6 Endpoint Behavior (2 octets): Encodes SRv6 Endpoint behavior defined in [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. This field MUST be

[spring] draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam-00

Please find few comments on this draft 1. Section 3.1.1 , below must be Ref2 Ref1: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. Software (slow path) implements the required OAM mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to the next hop. 1. 4.1.2.2, here it must be N2 (pag

[spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection/

Hi All, Section 2.3 Endpoint x Node as PLR Here we are handling 2 times failure (One layer-3 adjacency interface and another primary interface), in all other cases we only handle one failure. Better to restrict to handling of one failure. Thanks Rajesh Juniper Internal _

[spring] draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-00

Hi All, Egress protection can be achieved using Anycast address, why this new solution is required ? Thanks Rajesh Juniper Internal ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt

means that algorithm is supported for both SR as well as for SRV6 ? Selectively we cannot specify supported algorithm for SR,SRV6. Juniper Internal -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:43 PM To: Rajesh M ; cfils...@cisco.com; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; b

[spring] draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03

Hi All, Please find few comments on this draft. 1. Its better to have SRv6 Locator TLV similar to what is there in draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05. 1. Draft says O-flag: If set, then router is capable of supporting SRH O-bit Flags, as specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-

Re: [spring] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt

Wednesday, March 13, 2019 6:13 PM To: Rajesh M ; cfils...@cisco.com; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; bruno.decra...@orange.com; huzh...@huawei.com Cc: Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG ; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt Hi Rajesh, On 13/03/2019 07:02 , Rajesh M wrote: >

[spring] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt

1) SRv6 Endpoint Function: 2 octets. As defined in [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] Legal function values for this sub-TLV are defined in Section 7. This should be Section 8 I think, section 8 contains Advertising Endpoint Behaviors. Al reference to section 7 , we must change to se

[spring] draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-16

Please find observations on draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-16 1. Section 8.1 Segment Routing Header Flags Register why we need this bit for HMAC ? we should remove this section from this draft Suggested Description Reference Bit - 4