in this version we have better introduced the concept of the SRMS that is then
referenced by routing protocol extensions drafts.
thanks.
s.
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 12:19 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:05 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent:
>> Monday, June 12, 2017 3:52 PM
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> sorry for the mess. I’m afraid,
Hi Rob,
sorry for the mess. I’m afraid, the problem has been poorly described.
We’re obviously NOT questioning the use of the Binding SID and we’re NOT
proposing the removal of it.
What we’re talking about is the set of RSVP-like/ERO-like subTLVs that have
been defined in both isis and ospf
latest addressed comments.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 23, 2017, at 9:12 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
> IETF.
>
>
intentions?
>
> Regards,
> Sasha
>
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell: +972-549266302
> Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:
> On May 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Alexander Vainshtein
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I have a belated (but hopefully late is still better than never) comment on
> path protection as defined in Section 2 of the draft.
>
> This second para in this section says:
>A
Now, hopefully, this version addresses all comments (one was missing).
s.
> On May 8, 2017, at 7:40 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in
> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators
> that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane,
I’d agree with the above. Let’s simplify the document with, at the end, what
sed concurrently or as a primary and backup
> path where the secondary path is used when the primary failed."
> But the "concurrently" word is IMO ambiguous as it could mean 1+1 scheme or
> ECMP like behavior.
>
> Brgds,
>
>
> -Original Message-
> Fr
this version integrates shepherd review comments.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 2, 2017, at 4:48 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
>
this version integrates the latest comments from GENART, OPSDIR and RTGDIR
reviews.
s.
> On May 2, 2017, at 4:43 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet
> On May 1, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> Stefano,
>
> I won't argue further about the general issues, they are really
> between you and the ADs. About this:
>
> ...
>>> Minor issue:
>>>
>>>
>>> The text of section 3 doesn't
> On May 1, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Brian Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
Hi Lou,
thanks for the comment. I integrated them in the new version I’ll submit asap.
Thanks.
s.
> On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to
Hi Pushpasis,
I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the required
protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp drafts, we
already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been done.
s.
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar
John, Bruno,
sorry for having missed that. I’ll resubmit right now. I integrated all
comments. Regarding the missing "section 3.1" (referring to the isis draft), I
replaced text with the reference to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext
which defines the bgp-ls tlv for advertising the
updated version after reviews.
s.
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:21 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
> IETF.
>
>Title
new version with, hopefully, all comments, questions and issues being addressed.
Thanks.
s.
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 1:05 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet
Hi Jon,
many thanks for your review. Some comments inline.
where you don’t see any answer to your comments is because I applied them to
the draft.
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Hardwick
> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing
l Nits are your
> choice to adopt/not-adopt. IETF LC and IESG review will provide you lots of
> feedback on editorial nits.
yup, I applied all of them.
Thanks.
s.
>
>
> Sue
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
this drafts integrates comments received during WG last and shepherd reviews.
Thanks.
s.
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 3:53 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> <sprev...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu>
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>
> I support publication of the document as an informational RFC.
>
> Below are my comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
> ==
>
> - pg 5, line 1
> What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number? Is there a
>
Hi Bruno,
thanks for the review. I integrated all the comments in the new version I’m
going to submit very soon.
One last comment here below:
> On Feb 22, 2017, at 2:00 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> 2) For the document write up, are there any known deployment of
>
972-39266302
> Cell: +972-549266302
> Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:17 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecit
> On Feb 23, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Alexander Vainshtein
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I would like to point to what looks to me as inconsistency between the
> current (-05) version of the SR YANG Data Model draft and the latest (-06)
> version of the Segment Routing
as co-author, I support the publication of this draft.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02 [1].
>
> Please read the
Hi,
this version integrates comments received during shepherd review.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:34 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing
Hi,
this version integrates various comments received during the WG last call and
by the shepherd review.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on
> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017)There are
> two implementations describe on the wiki at:
>
support as co-author.
s.
> On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:08 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03 [1].
>
> Please read the document if you haven't read the most
integrated various comments from various contributors.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
this is the updated version after all received comments.
Thanks.
s.
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of
Stewart,
I applied some of your comments in the new submitted version of the draft. Some
other comments below.
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Here are a number of WGLC comments on this document.
>
> - Stewart
>
> Segment
I support as co-author.
s.
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05 [1].
>
> ¤ Please read the document if you
Hi Uma,
We'll add a couple of statements on that matter.
Thanks.
s.
-Original Message-
From: Uma Chunduri [uma.chund...@huawei.com]
Received: Monday, 30 Jan 2017, 6:40PM
To: Stewart Bryant [stewart.bry...@gmail.com]; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
[sprev...@cisco.com]; Martin Horneffer [m
I agree with Martin,
I think we have discussed this at length and I wouldn't re-spin the debate (and
come to the same conclusion again and again). The manageability section of the
architecture draft mention that a node may want to signal its stack
capabilities and we have igp extensions for
I support this draft.
s.
> On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> Hello WG,
>
> this e-mail initiates a two-week WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases
> [1].
>
> All the authors have already replied to the IPR poll.
> There is no known
as an author, I support this draft.
s.
> On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> this is a reminder, please express your opinion regarding this WG LC.
>
> Thank you
>
> -m
>
> Le 28/11/2016 à 10:37, Martin Vigoureux a écrit :
>> Hello
> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/12/2016 15:53, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> Stewart,
>>
>> thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Just to give you an update, the work currently
Stewart,
thanks for the feedback.
Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the
conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit/reduce the impact of a
misconfiguration in presence of conflicting prefix/sid mappings.
It is based on the concept that there’s no such
On Nov 30, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/2016 10:38, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The following a
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> The following are my comments on this text in response to the WGLC.
> A lot of comments are embedded in the draft text below.
>
> However I have some major overarching comments. Although this is called
> an
All,
added more text explaining the various figures and examples.
Thanks.
s.
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:58 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in
this is just a refresh.
Note that this draft is in "Call For Adoption By WG” state.
Thanks.
s.
> On Oct 17, 2016, at 1:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source
liency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem Cohen;
> DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: RE: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs
>
> Stephane,
> Lots of thanks for an important clarification.
>
> But don’t you think that in addition to
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
>> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12,
>> 2016 4:44 PM
>>
>> Dear SPRING WG (and I've taken the liberty of cc'ing RTGWG),
>>
>> The authors have indicated that
, necessary mechanisms SHOULD be provided ... to control when a repair
> path ..."
> "When" is important, but "how" is also important, especially for managed
> protection. Would be good to add this.
agreed.
I’ll submit the new version with your comments a
ander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:09 PM
> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com>
> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; spring@ietf.org;
> Ch
Cell: +972-549266302
> Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi
> (sprevidi)
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 PM
> To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
> SPRING WG,
>
> The current text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 regarding the
> "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm reads as follows.
>
>o "Strict Shortest Path": This algorithm mandates that the packet
Hi Chris,
> On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, this request for clarification of the text in
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 has not been addressed.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: spring
FYI,
just a refresh.
s.
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
> IETF.
>
>Title
Hi Stephane,
I’ll take care of this asap. Sorry for the delay.
s.
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:05 PM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> Could you please check the comment’s below so we can continue to progress the
> document ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> From: spring
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:41 AM, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
> Stefano,
>
> see inline with [Deccan]
>
> Thanks
> Deccan
>
>
>
> "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprev...@cisco.com>
> 2016-08-23 23:22
>
> 收件人
> "peng.
timization. Without the local label, you will share the
same sid among multiple prefixes.
> even the first case in this draft is actually not SID sharing, otherwise it
> will be cared by draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution.
No, it is not a conflict. Having a dedicated srri
repositor
As co-author, I support the adoption of this document to WG item.
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:55 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:52 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear Authors:
>
> As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been
> requested for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls. Before
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:50 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear Authors:
>
> As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been
> requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc. Before
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:49 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear Authors:
>
> As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, a second working group last call has
> been requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.
Hi,
integrated comments on SRMS and sRGB and added reference on Manageability and
Security sections.
Thanks.
s.
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 5:31 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt
> has been successfully submitted by
Hi,
Security and Manageability sections have been added.
Thanks.
s.
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
Added text on LDP when used in “independent vs. ordered” distribution mode.
thanks.
s.
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:51 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet
an-...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG;
> n...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; Stefano
> Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and
> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
>
> I agree with Robert and Jes
SPRING’ers,
This is our first rfc.
Now that we have a problem statement and requirements documents, we know what
we have to do ;-)
Thanks to everyone for the support.
Thanks.
s.
> On May 26, 2016, at 1:48 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> A new Request for Comments is now
the draft is about IPv6 extension header and more precisely a new type of the
routing extension header defined in rfc2460. That’s the context.
s.
>
> Tom
>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisc
.
>
> So VXLAN is off the table?
it’s all about IP, not layer-2.
s.
> It would be worthwhile to clarify this in the draft. If you have a specific
> encapsulation in mind, it would be great if the draft would specify it.
>
> Thanks,
> Tal.
>
>
>> -Origina
es the SR tunnel the outer encapsulation
(including the SRH) is removed and the packet continues
its journey like nothing happened.
s.
>
> Thanks,
> Tal.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
>> Sent:
> On May 16, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
>
> Hi Ole,
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
>
> It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to
> the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460.
please read
> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otr...@employees.org wrote:
>
> Tal,
>
>> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.]
>>
>> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment Endpoint
>> Node’ updates the Destination IP address.
>> Therefore, it must also update the
I just submitted:
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 and
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08
hopefully integrating the remaining comments from Sasha and Eric.
Thanks.
s.
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
> On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>
> Les,
>
> 2 quick things.
>
> 1.
> >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS:
>>1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR
> capable nodes
>
Eric,
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> There seems to be some inconsistency in the various documents about the way
> that penultimate hop popping is handled.
>
> When advertising a prefix-SID via OSPF, the OSPF Segment Routing extensions
> associate
Hi Eric,
sorry, I missed that one and will look into this asap.
s.
> On May 9, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> A few months back I pointed out a couple of small issues that I think need to
> be addressed in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. I still think they
final destination
>
>
>
>
> Rabah Guedrez
> Thésard
> ORANGE/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/ITEQ
>
> Phone: +33 2 96 07 18 56
> rabah.gued...@orange.com
>
>
> De : Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 13:46
>
[rabah.gued...@orange.com]
Received: Thursday, 28 Apr 2016, 12:58
To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com]
CC: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]; i...@ietf.org [i...@ietf.org]
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt
You have said in a previous response
just refreshed the draft.
Comments are appreciated.
Thanks.
s.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt
> Date: April 26, 2016 at 6:18:35 AM GMT+2
> To: Clarence Filsfils
this is the latest update of the ldp-interop draft after various comments among
which the ones from Alex (sorry from being so late).
I hope it address most of the comments, knowing that the authors are still
working on the manageability section (I just didn’t want to let the draft
expire).
as co-author, I support the WG adoption of this draft
s.
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:50 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
just a refresh with updated references.
Any comments/feedbakc is welcome.
Thanks.
s.
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
gt; wrote:
>
> Stefano,
>
> Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, when I see a rev of this document
> that addresses these items I will review and likely clear the discuss.
>
> Cheers
> Terry
>
> On 5/04/2016, 4:04 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)&q
Hi Terry,
sorry for coming back late on this. See below:
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Terry Manderson
> wrote:
>
> Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep
Hi,
see below for some comments.
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact
Hi Benoit,
Segment Routing is the solution that addresses the requirements described in
the problem-statement draft.
Since the problem-statement draft is not supposed to include any reference to
the solution, it has been agreed not to introduce the “Segment Routing”
terminology.
I’m fine
This is an update based on the various DISCUSS and comments received during
IESG review.
Following (hopefully) have been addressed:
1. more appropriate use of “SHOULD and “MUST” terminology.
2. clarification on dataplanes
3. Manageability section update
4. Security Section
5. Removed comparison
Hi,
See below some comments.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> The following is a
On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To
The update is related to the MPLS SRGB operations as agreed in the
conflict-relsolution discussion. Nothing has changed, it’s only more text about
the SRGB and how it is used in MPLS operations.
s.
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:36 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is
Hi Stephane,
I agree with you.
I also noticed that in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls we should have
(probably) a better description on how to use SRGB and indexes.
I propose to update draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls so that the
conflict-resolution draft can point to it when
Les,
it seems I missed most of the party… bad luck ;-)
I fully agree with your approach and it looks we getting very close to “rough
consensus” here.
s.
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Bruno –
>
> Taking a step back –
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> [Eric] Do you have an example in mind where it is useful to advertise
> an Originator SRGB when the prefix in the NLRI is not a host
> address?
>
> [Stefano] in fact I don’t have any good example where a /32 (/128) must
nator-SRGB with a prefix (other than a host address)?
>
> On 11/11/2015 3:00 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> I don’t want to constrain the advertisement of the Originator-SRGB to
>> a /32 (or even to a loopback interface prefix).
>
> Do you have an example in
On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Eric C Rosen <ero...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2015 8:18 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> A prefix may have a shorter mask than 32 (or 128) and still be ok for
>> the Originator SRGB to be there.
>
> Stefano,
>
&g
Hi Eric,
the proposed text looks good but with one question below.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Eric C Rosen
> wrote:
I'd like to make some suggestions for textual changes to sections 3.1 and
4.3 of draft-ietf-idr-prefix-sid. The main purpose of
FYI,
this is the proposal for carrying traffic using a common sid among prefixes.
It covers multiple use cases that have been described on the email thread
exchanged a couple of weeks ago.
s.
Begin forwarded message:
From: >
Subject:
just fixed the ip addresses used in the various illustrations.
s.
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:47 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
SPRINGers,
this is the WG item version of the MSDC draft.
Thanks.
s.
> On Oct 12, 2015, at 11:22 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Stefano,
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)"
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:42 AM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar
Cc: Imtiyaz Mohammad, Stephane Litkowski, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)",
Hannes Gredler, "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy
Pushpasis,
On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar
<psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Bruno,
From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>"
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:43 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar, &qu
On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar
<psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
From: <rras...@gmail.com<mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:50 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar
Cc: &q
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo