Chairs,
This is an important document. I support its adoption.
=
Dear WG:
This message starts a two-week adoption call for
ddraft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security, ending on August/19. From the
Abstract:
This document discusses security considerations
, March 27, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Tom Herbert ; spring@ietf.org ;
Alvaro Retana ; Robert Raszuk ;
Stewart Bryant ; Andrew Alston - IETF
Subject: Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
I think
Sasha,
Are we in violent agreement ?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:44 AM
To: Stewart Bryant ; Andrew Alston - IETF
Cc: Tom Herbert ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org
ednesday, March 27, 2024 9:01 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Antoine FRESSANCOURT
; Tom Herbert
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org
; Robert Raszuk ; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
100% agree w
.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Antoine FRESSANCOURT
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 4:42 AM
To: Andrew Alston - IETF ; Tom
Herbert ; Ron Bonica
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org
; Robert Raszuk
7:52 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org
; Andrew Alston - IETF ; Robert
Raszuk ; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:03 PM Ron Bonica wrote
Business Use Only
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:24 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org ; Andrew Alston - IETF
; Robert Raszuk ; Tom Herbert
; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:24 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Tom Herbert ; Alvaro Retana ;
Andrew Alston - IETF ; spring@ietf.org
; Joel Halpern
Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content
1:56 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org ; Andrew Alston - IETF
; Robert Raszuk ; Tom Herbert
; Alvaro Retana
Subject: RE: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron and all,
I respectfully disagree with the propos
s Use Only
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:40 PM
To: Alvaro Retana
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Andrew Alston - IETF
; Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org
; Joel Halpern
Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On M
Andrew,
Tom Herbert (copied on this message) raised the same issue regarding another
draft on the 6man mailing list a few months ago. I suggested that if this
problem ever needed to be solved, it could be solved with a new Hob-by-hop
option. This option would contain the IPv6 address of the ul
ion in your draft.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Tal Mizrahi
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Andrew Alston - IETF
Cc: Antoine FRESSANCOURT ;
Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compr
Folks,
Has anyone proposed a solution to the L4 checksum problem that Andrew talks
about?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring on behalf of Andrew Alston - IETF
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 5:21 AM
To: sprin
Adrian,
You say,
" b. draft-ietf-spring-compression-requirement has expired and perhaps
the WG intends it to fade away now that this draft is close to
completion."
As a co-author, I think that draft-ietf-spring-compression-requirement should
be allowed to fade away. It has received
To: Tony Przygienda
Cc: Ron Bonica ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz
; Kireeti Kompella ;
spring@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-raviolli-intarea-trusted-domain-srv6-00.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content
On second thought, if we had the new ethertype, we wouldn’t need the new /16!
They serve the same function
Ron
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; Kireeti
Kompella
Cc: Adrian
+1
If we allocate a /16 for SRv6 USIDs, as proposed in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-sids-02.txt,
we can allow that prefix only when the new ethertype is used.
Ron
From: spring On Behalf Of Krz
carry the flag, tag and TLV fields
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 3:27 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: uSID and destination options
[External Emai
You don't need anything else.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Tianran Zhou
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:08 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert
Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spr
arren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:31 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: uSID and destination options
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron, my read of section 4.1.1 of the draft is the dest opt in your example
packet would be process
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Tianran Zhou
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert
Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m
Folks,
The SRH TLV for Alternate Marking isn't needed because its meaning is
identical to the AltMark Option when it appears in a Destination Options Header
that precedes the SRH.
Arguments regarding the HBH are orthogonal to this issue. The HBH is processed
at every node along a packet's de
C-SID authors,
Consider an SRv6 packet that contains:
* An outer IPv6 header
* A Destination Options Header
* IPv4 payload
The packet does not contain an SRH. However, the Destination Address field in
the outer IPv6 header contains a C-SID container and the C-SID container
contai
.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:10 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: John Scudder ;
draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] "This solution does not require any SRH data plane
change"
Robert,
Which requirement was that?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:41 PM
To: John Scudder
Cc: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [
Authors,
Could you update the draft to reflect the new pseudocode, below. It is
essential to the 6man review.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Th
Jim,
Before accepting this document, we might want to discuss why the NEXT-C-SID
behavior and the REPLACE-C-SID behavior are both needed. Even if there are use
cases in which one performs slightly better than the other, it the performance
improvement really worth all of the additional complexit
-
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:48 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Brian E Carpenter ; Robert Raszuk
; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org>; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:14
Folks,
It is much more simple than this.
According to RFC 8200, an IPv6 Destination Address is the “128-bit address of
the intended recipient of the packet (possibly not the ultimate recipient, if a
Routing header is present). See [RFC4291] and Section 4.4.”
Therefore, if a packet does not con
Inline [RB]
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Eduard Metz
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 5:03 AM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Can the SID be
uot; The WG needs to determine whether the requirements that
register a difference are significant.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ahmed Bashandy
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:21 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; James Guich
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:58 PM
To: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica
Cc: James Guichard ; SPRING WG
; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for
htt
Ahmed,
I don't recall the DT recommending the CSID. In fact, the word "recommend" does
not appear anywhere in the analysis document.
As a member of the DT, I don't recommend CSID.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: s
)
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; James Guichard
; SPRING WG
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
I believe your
Jim,
The call for adoption has already been posted. There is no way to put that
toothpaste back into its tube. However, I strongly recommend against such calls
for adoption in the future.
Normally, the authors of a document are encouraged to answer technical
questions as a condition of adoptio
sn't represent a single
thing on a single node. It represents an entire SR path.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:35 PM
To: 6...@ietf.org
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compressio
Pablo,
The WG has expressed a strong preference for having a single compression
*behavior*. Why is it OK to ignore that preference because RFC 8986 has 36
different behaviors?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring
?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:05 PM
To: Tony Przygienda
Cc: Ron Bonica ; 6...@ietf.org
And more specifically, all of the tables in Section A.2 will be modified,
replacing the C-SID column with one column for NEXT-C-SID, one column for
REPLACE-C-SID, and one column for NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID
Ron
Juniper Business Use
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: liu.ai...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 9:03 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: rob...@raszuk.net; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re:[spring] CSID Question
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
You raised an
it ?
Now I am going to rest assured and enjoy the rest of this show.
Best,
Robert
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:58 PM Ron Bonica
mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Robert,
I do remember that quote. And that is exactly why I ask the question!
If NEXT-C-SID and REPLACE-C-SID are incomp
.
Ron
P.S. Rest assured that I have read the draft. However, your concern is greatly
appreciated 😉
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:32 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject
Folks,
Draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 introduces three new SID
types that can occupy the Destination Address field of an IPv6 header. See
Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the draft for details.
The SPRING WG has issued a call for adoption for this draft.
It is not clear that t
CSID Authors,
Assume that an SR path contains segments 1 through 8. Segments 1, 3, 5, and 7
are END SIDs that use Next-C-SID (i.e., uSID). Segments 2, 4, and 6 are END
SIDs that use Replace-C-SID. Segment 8 is and END.DX4 SID.
Please provide an example that shows us:
* What the SRH looks
Chairs,
I strongly object to the adoption of this draft.
I also note that this is a very strange adoption call. The WG has indicated a
preference for a single forwarding plane behavior. However, bullets #1 and #4
in the Call for Adoption suggest that the WG has yet to address whether the
draft
Tony,
Thanks for pointing out that all requirements are not equally important. Some
may be extremely important while others are minimally important. Therefore, our
analysis should focus on the important requirements.
I agree that Encapsulation Header Size is the most important requirement. I
a
Gyan,
You raise a very good point. In the analysis document, Tables 1 through 6 and
Tables 12 through 15 each contain only one column for the CSID. They do not
indicate whether the number in that column were calculated using the
NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, or NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID. (That is, th
Dhruv,
My hope is that the WG will consider each requirement in Appendix A, taking one
of the following actions for each:
* Drop the requirement
* Move the requirement into the main body of the text
* Modify the requirement and move it into the main body of the text
Each item eithe
Dhruv,
You raise a very good question. What makes us think that the largest network
diameter is 16? Next year, it may be 32! Maybe we need to rethink this
requirement.
An IPv6 routing header can contain no more than 2,048 bytes. Therefore, an SRH
without compression can support an SR path that
Dhruv,
Thanks for you review and support.
Does the change below (inline) address your first comment?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:56 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Bruno,
Thanks. This clears up the confusion.
I support adoption.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 5:50 AM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt
Bruno,
When a WG adopts a design team draft, I assume that the draft becomes subject
to the following guidelines from RFC7221:
"Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is owned by the working
group and can be changed however the working group decides, within the bounds
of IETF proces
Tony,
Thanks for these wise words! It is time for the WG to consider the DT output
and make an informed decision based on best technical reasoning, not current
popularity, deployment or market share.
IMHO, the requirements and analysis documents are not a ringing endorsement for
any particular
al numbers?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:13 PM
To: SPRING WG
Cc: Ron Bonica
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression
Gyan,
The design team was not chartered to select a winner. It was chartered to
provide input to the WG.
AFAIKS, the WG still has the following tasks before it:
* To determine whether the all candidate solutions are compliant with
existing BCP and PS drafts (particularly RFC 4291)
* T
Chairs,
The design team did not consider whether the candidate compression schemes
comply with existing BCP and PS drafts. We agreed that the WG would take up
this issue after the design team completed its work.
I think that there is a question as to whether the CSID solution complies with
RFC
Martin,
In Section 4.2.4 (Metric), you say:
> Metric: The compression mechanism fits into existing IPv6 address
> structures. It does not require management of a new kind of number
> resource that needs to be coordinated for all network domains that are
> potentially involved.
Does this
Rishabh,
Is Section 2 of the SR replication segment draft compliant with Section 2.7 of
RFC 4291? Could it be brought into compliance by using the high order 16 bits
that RFC 4291 recommends?
Ron
Juniper Business Use
Hi Gyan,
In theory, it should map any END.DTM to any MPLS label stack, regardless of
the control plane.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:18 AM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Jeff
Folks,
The draft has been updated to address comments.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:53 PM
> To: Greg Mirsky ; Peng Shaofu
&g
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:55 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura
Cc: Loa Andersson ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron
This is an interesting SR-MPLS to SRv6
g Mirsky ; Peng Shaofu
> ; Ron Bonica ; Shaofu Peng
> ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT-
> zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-02.txt
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-s
: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
I think this new SRv6 endpoint behavior is very useful to connect an
SRv6 island and an SR-MPLS island. I have two comments
entry."
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:51 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura ; Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-01.txt
Please review and comment
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:41 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky ; Peng Shaofu
> ; Ron Bonica ; Shaofu Peng
> ; Shraddha Hegde ; EXT-
> zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn
&
Pablo,
Assume the following packet:
* Destination address is a uSID container
* Next header is an SRH
In this case, you wouldn't process the SRH until you process every uSID in the
uSID container. Do I have this much right?
So, if any uSID in the container specified the PSP or USP fla
+1
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:07 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WG adoption call for
draft-hegde-spring-node-p
created a new
data plane?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Vasilenko Eduard
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:21 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Darren Dukes (ddukes) ;
SPRING WG
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
draft-dukes-spring
s Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:33 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-dukes-spring-srv6-overhead-analysis-00.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron. Thanks for reading the document.
You say about section 5:
Darren,
Your draft purports to be an "SRv6 Network Programming Overhead Analysis". As
such, it should address overhead analysis and avoid:
* Topics that are orthogonal to overhead analysis
* The appearance of attempting to position one compression strategy over
another for reasons oth
to be enabled on the network.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:30 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; Gyan Mishra
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] Spring SR question??
[External Emai
Gyan,
You can signal SR-MPLS over a network that has IPv6 enabled, but does not have
IPv4 enabled.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 1:20 PM
To: SPRING WG
Subject: [spring] Spr
Support.
I would be willing to work on the draft.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 10:46 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-voyer
: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; Aijun Wang ;
i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron.
The SID described in RFC8754 is fully described there.
The SIDs in draft-ietf
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 6:04 PM
To: Mark Smith
Cc: Ron Bonica ; Aijun Wang ;
spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hey Mark,
Thank you for presenting your house architectural perspective
Robert,
I wasn't aware that I was shooting. But, since it is 19:39 in my time zone, I
might take a shot of Fernet Branca.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 5:31 PM
To: Ron Bonic
Robert,
While this is an interesting question, it is orthogonal to the question that I
posed to Darren.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:33 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Darren Dukes
Darren,
Does the SID described in RFC 8754 represent any of the SIDs in the Network
Programming Draft? In any other document?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Monda
ent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Aijun Wang ;
i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in RFC8754(SRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
Agreed ICMP is an upper-layer header that should be consistent with the
SRv6-OAM draft
Hi Jingrong,
Where did you post the text?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Aijun Wang ;
i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: About the upper layer header processing in
Aijun, Jingrong,
Could the upper-layer header also be ICMP, as in a ICMP Echo message?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:29 PM
To: Aijun Wang ; i...@ietf.org; spring@
Congratulations to Jim and Joel. And thanks to Rob for his service.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 4:25 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc:
Weibin,
Inline…..
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica
; Joel M. Halpern
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [
: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring]
CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Sometimes a known devil is better than an unkno
.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:46 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
[Ex
w.als...@liquidtelecom.com ; Ron
Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Limited domains ...
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On 28-May-20 10:39, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Maybe we should just drop right here this "limited domain" restriction/s
not a grand architecture.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 6:32 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter ; Robert Raszuk
; ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com
Cc: Ron Bonica ; spring@ietf.org; 6man
...@liquidtelecom.com
Cc: Ron Bonica ; Zafar Ali (zali) ;
Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; Sander
Steffann ; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring]
CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[Ex
3:19 PM
To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; Sander
Steffann
Cc: Mach Chen ; Ron Bonica ; Chengli
(Cheng Li) ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org; Zafar Ali
(zali)
Subject: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH
is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/
, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: What's the colour of the hat (was: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the
SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH)
[snip]
The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to d
s.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: What's the colour of the hat (was: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the
SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
[cha
So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Sander Steffann ; Robert Raszuk ;
spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.
Ole,
When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: otr...@employees.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org
out SR. Some are actively
averse to SRv6. All they want is a Routing header.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:21 AM
To: Ron Bonica ;
ards,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:09 AM
To: Tom Herbert ; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Fol
Ketan,
Please consider an operator who:
- Wants a way to steer IPv6 packets through a specified path that includes many
nodes (>8)
- Does not want any of the following:
- A new VPN encapsulation technique
- A new service function chaining technique
- Network programming
-
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 7:56 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Ron Bonica ;
spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:51 PM B
.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 1:01 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring
Cc: spring
Subject: Reply: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint
Only
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:59 PM
To: Ron Bonica ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding NSH, a
Shuping,
The CRH can appear in a packet along with any valid combination of extension
headers.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:12 AM
To: Ron Bonica
1 - 100 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
