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-central-epe. Before we begin
>
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. Before we begin the
as co-author, I support the WG adoption and I’m not aware of any IPR related to
this draft.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:39 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear WG (and cc MPLS, please include SPRING in replies),
>
> As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested for
ly submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls
> Revision: 05
> Title:Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
> Document date:2016-07-06
> Group:spr
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
&g
the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
> IETF.
>
>Title : Segment Routing interworking with LDP
>Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Ahmed Bashandy
>
pring@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 Jesse. - Larry
>
> From: 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 available
d 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...@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:24 PM
f 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.
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
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: Monday, May 16, 20
> 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 carefully draft-ietf-6m
> 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 La
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
https://www.ietf.org/mai
> 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 an NP-Flag with the
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 need to
> be addresse
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 to a
On Apr 28, 2016, at 11:13 AM, rabah.gued...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Rabah Guedrez
> Thésard
> ORANGE/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/ITEQ
>
> Phone: +33 2 96 07 18 56
> rabah.gued...@orange.com
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-
> De : Stefano Previdi (sprevi
>
> Rabah Guedrez
> Thésard
> ORANGE/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/ITEQ
>
> Phone: +33 2 96 07 18 56
> rabah.gued...@orange.com
>
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 avril 2016 15:
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:17 PM, rabah.gued...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I would like some clarification about the treatment of the SRH by an end
> point (the node that its loopback matches the DA field),
>
> In section 3 :
> You say that the
> C-flag: Clean-up flag. Set when the SRH has t
nak ,
> Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info
>
: Segment Routing interworking with LDP
>Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Ahmed Bashandy
> Bruno Decraene
> Stephane Litkowski
> Filena
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
I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
thanks.
s.
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 9:56 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> The authors of draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution believe that the
> document is ready to be considered for working adoption.
>
> This mai
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 an
gt;
> 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)"
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Terry,
&
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 the subject line intact and r
uld be S6) in section 5.2.
>
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi
> (sprevidi)
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 6:40 AM
> To: SPRING WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Ac
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 and reply to all
> email addr
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 with
TF.
>
>Title : SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
> Authors : Stefano Previdi
> Clarence Filsfils
> Bruno Decraene
> Stephane Litkowski
> Marti
Hi,
See below some comments.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> The following is a training review from the Suresh
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 and CC lines. (Fee
rs : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Ahmed Bashandy
> Bruno Decraene
> Stephane Litkowski
> Martin Horneffer
> Rob
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 refe
all, but most) of the
receiver problems vanish.
> and I would not give any priority to one over the other except if now vendors
> stop to produce buggy codes ;)
vendors produce features… ;-)
s.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stephane
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
&
Hi Stephane,
to me it’s perfectly fine to have the sender behavior described in the protocol
because this is the critical part of the whole game.
If all implementations behave properly at the sender side, you won’t have any
problem at the receiver side.
Also, the protocol-specific draft is th
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 – resummarizing my position:
>
>
> 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 be
> enforced…
>
>
ix (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 mind where it is useful to
On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Eric C Rosen 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,
>
> On further thought, I wonder i
Hi Eric,
the proposed text looks good but with one question below.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Eric C Rosen
mailto:ero...@juniper.net>> 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 these suggestions is
Hi Eric,
sorry for coming back late to you. I’ll go through our suggestions asap.
Thanks.
s.
> 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 these sugges
I’d suggest you to have a look at draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-00.txt
Thanks.
s.
> On Nov 1, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Lizhenbin wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
> We proposes two drafts on the new type of segment in the segment routing:
> draft-li-spring-tunnel-segment-00 and draft-li-pce-tunnel-segmen
cation for
draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-00.txt
Date: October 19, 2015 at 8:54:43 AM GMT+2
To: Stefano Previdi mailto:sprev...@cisco.com>>, Clarence
Filsfils mailto:cfils...@cisco.com>>, Peter Psenak
mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>, Stefano Previdi
mailto:sprev...@cisco.
gt; Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
>Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Ahmed Bashandy
> Bruno Decraene
>
ting in Networking Working
> Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : Segment Routing Architecture
>Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Bruno Decraene
> Stephane Litkowsk
Packet Routing in Networking Working
> Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data centers
>Authors : Clarence Filsfils
> Stefano Previdi
> Jon Mitchell
&g
On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote:
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.or
On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>> wrote:
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 Gred
Pushpasis,
On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar
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, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)&q
Hi Pushpasis,
If your use case requires to use the same label on top of packets destined to
different prefixes, then my proposal of recursing into the node-sid works just
fine (in addition to addressing other use cases).
[Pushpasis] No. I seem to be repeating myself. But your suggestion of rec
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
I agree.
s.
On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Rob Shakir wrote:
>
> On 24 September 2015 at 09:09:00, Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
> (anil...@huawei.com) wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Thanks for reverting back the mail.
>>
>> If there is a desire to control traffic flows on individual bundle inte
Hi,
if you're an operator (SP, content, etc) and looking for a multicast solution,
maybe you should have a look at BIER WG.
Thanks.
s.
On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a basic question around SPRING/SR.
>
> How can an IP/MPLS carrier in the market today de
Chris,
I will put back the original Mirror Segment section in the draft. In fact we
did have a text for it in the very first instance of the draft
(draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00)
Thanks.
s.
On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:09 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
> All,
>
> It appears that section 3.6.3
Hi Brian,
to me, the main document describing segment routing is
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. Within this document we describe the
architecture and main functions.
draft-spring-segment-routing-mpls describes its instantiation to the mpls
dataplane and draft-previdi-6man-segment-routung-h
t; 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, August 31, 2015 4:02 PM
> To: John G. Scudder
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [spring]
Hi John,
I just returned from a long vacation and I will address all the comments made
on the various drafts asap.
Thanks.
s.
On Aug 29, 2015, at 5:05 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> SPRING fans,
>
> In case you had forgotten or were saving your comments til the end, we have
> the following und
All,
in this version we added more clarifications on the anycast use-case.
Thanks.
s.
Begin forwarded message:
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-04.txt
> Date: July 31, 2015 9:53:22 AM GMT+02:00
> To: Stefano Previdi , Rob Sha
Hi Sasha,
Many thanks for your review and comments. I'll go through them asap.
Thanks.
s.
On Jul 29, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Alexander Vainshtein
wrote:
> Hi,
> My previous message has been put on hold by the moderator of the SPRING WG as
> having too many recipients.
> This is partially due to
as co-author:
. I support the adoption of this draft as WG item
. I confirm IPR has been already disclosed for this document
thanks.
s.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:15 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
> requested f
as co-author I support the adoption of this draft a WG item and I confirm IPR
has been already disclosed.
s.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:17 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
> requested for draft-filsfils-spring-segm
As co-author I support the adoption of this document as WG item and I'm not
aware of any IPR related to it.
s.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:15 PM, John G.Scudder wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
> requested for draft-filsfils-spring-se
support.
s.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:13 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption has been
> requested for draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase. Please reply to the list with
> your comments, including although not limited to whether or
On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:12 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Dear SPRING WG (and cc MPLS, OSPF, IS-IS, 6MAN, please include SPRING in
> replies per the reply-to):
>
> As we discussed at the SPRING meeting yesterday, working group last call has
> been requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. Pl
Support.
s.
-Original Message-
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Received: Monday, 29 Jun 2015, 19:21
To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]
Subject: [spring] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-spring-sr-yang-01
Hello working group,
This email starts a two-week
I support this document as it express oam requirements as indicated by the wg
charter.
s.
-Original Message-
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Received: Wednesday, 10 Jun 2015, 8:07
To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]
Subject: [spring] Poll for adoption: draft
Hi Hannes,
On May 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi stefano,
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:55:07PM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
> | [... ]
> | SP> Can you clarify in a new thread what is your problem in making the
> Binding TLV _not_ MT awar
thread below
and feel free to comment.
On May 20, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi stefano,
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 01:58:22PM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
> | On May 18, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> |
> | > hi les,
> | &g
st to make it _not_ MT aware in OSPF ? In such case
we have to change the OSPF spec.
s.
On May 21, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi stefano,
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:14:20AM +, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
> [ ... ]
> | > | SP> why not creating a
On May 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Martin Horneffer wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> there is a problem for networks that use spring on the MPLS forwarding plane:
> It seems it would not be feasible to use anycast segments for traffic
> engineering since we introduced indexed SIDs.
well, yes, that's th
Updated based on Alvaro's comments.
Thanks.
s.
Begin forwarded message:
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04.txt
> Date: April 27, 2015 3:18:31 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene
> , Martin Ho
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 Prefix-SID Sub-TLV
> It seems that we cannot support Prefix-SID Propagation with
ually or pushed from
>> centralized entity.
>> Optional configs : all the decision that can be made locally by the
>> "SR-client" like assigning Adj-SIDs to the node interfaces.
>>
>>
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : spring [m
I agree. We already have interop tests done on the SRMS so what is the real
added value of another proposal ?
s.
On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> Ting,
>
> there is a concept of SR Mapping Server, which can be used to advertise SIDs
> for prefixes from the central place.
g
> Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : IPv6 SPRING Use Cases
>Authors : John Brzozowski
> John Leddy
> Ida Leung
> Stefano Previdi
> Mark Town
t 03:35:21AM -0800, 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
> Working Group of the IETF.
> |
> |
this version aims to address comments form Andrew.
Thanks.
s.
Begin forwarded message:
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-01.txt
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-01.txt
> has been successfully submi
On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> ===
> >At this stage there's no need to have shorter sid 's for ipv6 also because
> >the current use
> > cases afdressed by existing implementations do not require any igp anyway.
> I meant "igp extensions" of cour
-Original Message-
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com]
> Received: Thursday, 13 Nov 2014, 13:13
> To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]; xuxia...@huawei.com
> [xuxia...@huawei.com]
> Subject: RE: [spring] Do we really need such a diversity
>
> Xia
Xiaohu,
At this stage there's no need to have shorter sid 's for ipv6 also because the
current use cases afdressed by existing implementations do not require any igp
anyway. IOW, segments do not represent igp shortest paths but rather
application/service instances.
We MAY want to consider othe
Hi John,
I already ack'ed Andrew' s comments and will address them asap.
Thanks.
s.
-Original Message-
From: John Scudder [jg...@me.com]
Received: Tuesday, 11 Nov 2014, 9:48
To: Andrew G. Malis [agma...@gmail.com]; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
[cfils...@cisco.com]; Stefa
e Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking Working
> Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
>Authors : Stefano Previdi
>
se-cases-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases
> Revision: 01
> Title:Segment Routing Use Cases
> Document date:2014-10-21
>
ng-04
> .
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> wrote:
> On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)"
> wrote:
>
> >IPR is in the process of being disclosed.
>
> The IPR was filed on O
alis wrote:
> Alvaro et al,
>
> Had I seen Stefano's email prior to completing my QA review for this draft, I
> would have included that WG adoption should wait until after the WG has had a
> chance to review the disclosure.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> On Tue, Oct 7
IPR is in the process of being disclosed.
Thanks.
s.
On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask
> the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of
> the draft) to
IPR is in the process of being disclosed.
Thanks.
s.
On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask
> the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of
> the draft) to
no IPR.
s.
On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:34 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors
> (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to
> please respond to this message indicating whether or no
xt
> Date: October 1, 2014 2:15:34 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene
> , Martin Horneffer ,
> Rob Shakir , Stephane Litkowski
> , Clarence Filsfils ,
> Bruno Decraene , Stefano Previdi
> , Clarence Filsfils , Rob Shakir
> , Martin Horneffer ,
>
On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Sasha,
>
> I did NOT mean to imply that this discussion in the MPLS wg should
> wait until the SPRING wg last call, on the contrary if the answer to
> my question is that this a domain wide label, then it has to be brought
> to the MPLS wg BEFORE
Sasha,
SIDs are globally allocated and distributed. So, the answer to your question
about P1, P2, P3 and P4 knowledge of the SID representing PE2 is "yes". Routers
within the domain must know the SID representing PE2 (e.g.: 102).
Now, when it comes to the dataplane, it has to be understood that
I support the draft as co-author.
s.
On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.
>
> Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on
> Oc
I support the draft as co-author.
s.
On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.
>
> Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on
> October
As co-author, I support the advancement of this draft.
s.
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [aret...@cisco.com]
Received: Tuesday, 23 Sep 2014, 20:29
To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]
CC: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statem...@tools.ietf.org
[draft-ietf-spring-problem-sta
-routing-ldp-interop-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
> Revision: 02
> Title:Segment Routing interoperability with LDP
&
ake
> sure I'm not misreading the drafts.
that's correct. Note that we don't really have documented a use case for the
algorithm field. Yet another way to do multi-topology... in case we don't have
enough of them already...
s.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
&
101 - 200 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
