Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem Cohen; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Subject: Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs Stephane, Sasha, All, just to be sure w’ere in sync. It is obvious to me that it won’t make much sense to have a requirements stating that disjointness must be guaranteed

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

September 27, 2016 14:41 >> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS >> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Shell Nakash; Michael Gorokhovsky; >> draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem >> Cohen; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) >> Subjec

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

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

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

: spring@ietf.org; Shell Nakash; Michael Gorokhovsky; draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-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

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

Rotem Cohen Subject: RE: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs Hi, As Stefano mentioned, as it's a use case and requirement draft, we do not have to talk about solutions, and about issues in using one or other mechanism. Such considerations about using or not some particular SID

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

-resiliency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem Cohen Subject: Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs Stefano, Bruno and all, Lots of thanks for detailed responses that, frankly, now go much deeper than my original question. My concern was about combining "regular"

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

fano Previdi (sprevidi) Cc: spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein ; Shell Nakash ; Michael Gorokhovsky ; draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer ; Rotem Cohen Subject: Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs Hi Stefano, > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevid

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

Hi Stefano, > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: > Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:53 AM > > > On Sep 27, 2016, at 9:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > As an individual contributor, please find a comment inline > > > >> Fr

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 9:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > > As an individual contributor, please find a comment inline > >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: >> Monday, September 26, 2016 11:22 AM >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 26, 2016,

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

Hi Stefano, As an individual contributor, please find a comment inline > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, > September 26, 2016 11:22 AM > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > > wrote: > > > > Hi Sasha, > >

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > wrote: > > Hi Sasha, > > sorry for being late. See below. > > >> On Jul 10, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Vainshtein >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I have read the SR Resiliency Use Cases draft and I have an issue with the >> path

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

Hi Sasha, sorry for being late. See below. > On Jul 10, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Hi all, > I have read the SR Resiliency Use Cases draft and I have an issue with the > path protection use case. > > The draft defines this use case with the following constrains/qu

[spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

Hi all, I have read the SR Resiliency Use Cases draft and I have an issue with the path protection use case. The draft defines this use case with the following constrains/qualifiers (quoting from Section 2)