Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Folks, Can I ask those who have deployed SRv6 how they address SRHs that contain more than 5 or 6 SIDs? Ron Juniper Business Use Only ___ spr

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

; Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG List ; Andrew Alston ; James Guichard ; Shraddha Hegde ; Rob Shakir ; Zafar Ali (zali) Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) Hi Sander, No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

2019/09/11 0:35、Sander Steffann のメール: > Hi, > >> If you say you are an operator, and ask us to disclose on where, for what, >> scale and use case, please describe yours at first in very detail. > > ISP in The Netherlands, between 50k and 100k customers three datacenters, > multiple interconnec

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) > But IETF mission is to make sure you have interoperable services and so far > for all SRv6+ related draft this is all single vendor. Sorry but linux code > does not count. And Cisco is doing ex

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

>> Please elaborate about the real deployment. Where was it deployed? In what >> kind of networks? On what scale? For which use cases? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Ron Bonica , SPRING WG List , Andrew Alston , James Guichard , Shraddha Hegde , Rob Shakir , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "Voyer, Daniel" Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) Hi Wim, > I am not sure but some peopl

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi Wim, > I am not sure but some people have perception this is MPLS as per RSVP/LDP but it isn’t. Exactly. See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/qvRUp8SC2cWeIE5UhhU9aKGtpHM > No, I don't want to have to manage both MPLS and tunnels. That only adds complexity. No one would ask you t

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Sander, in-line On 10/09/2019, 19:39, "Sander Steffann" wrote: Hi Wim, > WH> Would you be ok with this? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07, support segment routing over IPv4 and/or IPv6. No, I don't want to have to manage both MPLS and tunnels. Tha

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi Wim, > WH> Would you be ok with this? > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-07, support segment > routing over IPv4 and/or IPv6. No, I don't want to have to manage both MPLS and tunnels. That only adds complexity. Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message sign

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi Sander, You keep saying SRv6 is complex. But it is only as complex as you are going to make it or as you will need it to be. No one is mandating you to do any network programming or to use multiple TLVs. If you just need to use SR for basic TE you insert one or two SIDs and you are done. If yo

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Sander, in-line On 10/09/2019, 18:21, "spring on behalf of Sander Steffann" wrote: Hi, > No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting trapped in the SRv6 walled garden. > > The way IETF works (at least in vast majority of WGs) is that if you do not

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, > No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting trapped in > the SRv6 walled garden. > > The way IETF works (at least in vast majority of WGs) is that if you do not > like a specific element of a solution or if something is missing from any > solution during WG process

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi Sander, No. And that is why I want SRv6+ to move forward, to avoid getting trapped > in the SRv6 walled garden. > The way IETF works (at least in vast majority of WGs) is that if you do not like a specific element of a solution or if something is missing from any solution during WG process - y

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi Robert, >> Because many problems are identified in the current work > > Please kindly enumerate technical problems which got identified. It will be > actually very helpful list. > >> It's not needs/requirements, it's mostly the lack of a KISS approach > > Not all vendors are falling into th

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, > If you say you are an operator, and ask us to disclose on where, for what, > scale and use case, please describe yours at first in very detail. ISP in The Netherlands, between 50k and 100k customers three datacenters, multiple interconnect locations, currently using MPLS for L2VPN (as lit

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Dear Sander, Because many problems are identified in the current work > Please kindly enumerate technical problems which got identified. It will be actually very helpful list. It's not needs/requirements, it's mostly the lack of a KISS approach > Not all vendors are falling into the last "S" ca

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, If you say you are an operator, and ask us to disclose on where, for what, scale and use case, please describe yours at first in very detail. thanks, --satoru 2019/09/10 23:29、Sander Steffann のメール: > Hi, > >> That was my point in the email thread “Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+”; >> >

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, > That was my point in the email thread “Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+”; > > • SRH has been around since 5 years with now 22 versions the last call > is done, it’s on its way to become an RFC > • ISIS/SRv6 is out there since 2015 with lots of iterations > > After all these y

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

li) > Cc: Rob Shakir ; Ron Bonica ; SPRING > WG List ; Shraddha Hegde ; Andrew > Alston > Subject: RE: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG > (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) > > I don’t think anyone is trying to make themselves look superior. Presumabl

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Guichard , Sander Steffann , "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: Rob Shakir , SPRING WG List , Shraddha Hegde , Andrew Alston Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) Jim, Please accept this comment in the spirit which it is intende

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

2019 8:59 AM To: Sander Steffann ; Zafar Ali (zali) Cc: Rob Shakir ; Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG List ; Shraddha Hegde ; Andrew Alston Subject: RE: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) I don't think anyone is trying to make themselves look supe

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

: Saturday, September 07, 2019 1:22 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) Cc: Rob Shakir ; Ron Bonica ; SPRING WG List ; Shraddha Hegde ; Andrew Alston Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment draft

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

On 7/9/19 20:10, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: [] > > Rough consensus and running code... But we work by rough consensus. > > Running code that explicitly goes against consensus is no IETF standard > at al. > >   > > [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment > draft,  > https://tools.ietf

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

On 7/9/19 19:17, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > > * Spring chairs and AD were repeatedly flamed. They had to defend > [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZFm_bQP1-C2f9xJuXtvEd9mLoxU] > * 6man AD/ chairs had to defend, > e.g.,  > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zfr-dC

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

> [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment draft, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01#section-3. > It provides some details on the Significant industry collaboration that led > to SRv6 standardization. SRv6 standardization went through the ri

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, Please see in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Sander Steffann Date: Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:57 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Ron Bonica , Shraddha Hegde , Rob Shakir , SPRING WG List Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Hi, I noticed this bit of your message, and it made me think. > With regards to your points about its all already developed – are you really > telling me that because the authors chose to go and spend ages developing > something while taking zero cognizance of the consensus in the community on

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

r Ali (zali)" Date: Saturday, 7 September 2019 at 19:17 To: Ron Bonica , Shraddha Hegde , Rob Shakir , SPRING WG List Cc: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) Ron,    > There hasn't been a s

[spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Ron, > There hasn't been a single mail denying the above advantages of SRv6+ Among many comments from many operators and vendors, please see, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wFDK_Be7lEt4s191m61WdUOEzL4 We must remind you that the original questions from the Spring chair were