insb...@cisco.com>>,
Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, Stephane
Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>, Jeff
Tantsura mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subj
ha); spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde (shrad...@juniper.net);
> Pushpasis Sarkar (psar...@juniper.net)
> Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-
> yang
>
> hi les,
>
> see inline prefixed by HG>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:44:02PM +,
o.com>>,
Pushpasis Sarkar mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, Stephane
Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>, Jeff
Tantsura mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [s
) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Envoyé : mardi 11 août 2015 20:48
À : Pushpasis Sarkar; GUEDREZ Rabah IMT/OLN; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Jeff
Tantsura; spring@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Pushpasis/Rabah -
The conflicting SRGB range issue is
pha); spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde (shrad...@juniper.net);
|
|> Pushpasis Sarkar (psar...@juniper.net)
|
| > Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
|draft-ietf-spring-sr-
|
|> yang
|
|>
|
|> hi les,
|
|>
|
|> On Fri, Jul
t;mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Pushpasis/Rabah –
The conflicting SRGB range issue is neither new nor specific to protocol
specific SRGBs. There is already a (somewhat lively) disc
: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Rabah,
Totally agree to your point. And that is why IMO, the configuration module on
any router MUST NOT allow any of the per-protocol SRGBs to overlap. All the
per-protcol SRGBs MUST be non-overlapping.
Thanks
-Pushpasis
From
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
I strongly support option #2
but a Problem may occur in that case, if the per-protocol SRGBs share a
subSpace.
so let us conside
t; | > [mailto:han...@juniper.net]
> | > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:02 AM
> | > To: stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
> | > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha
> | > (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org<mailto
gt; Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha);
| > spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde (shrad...@juniper.net); Pushpasis Sarkar
| > (psar...@juniper.net)
| > Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-
| > yang
| >
| >
t : Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Looks that consensus is for option#2, so let's move SRGB to protocol
configuration.
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 08:04
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; spring@ie
nsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:50 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Pushpasis Sarkar; Hannes Gredler; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Aissaoui,
Mustapha (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Rob
+1
--
Uma C.
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ahmed Bashandy
(bashandy)
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:23 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
One of the objective of the YANG Model is to manage
Hegde
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Les,
It is protocols which as used to construct and signal topologies. If I have two
topologies where in your model of global SRGB do I allocate a block of A to one
topo and block of B to the other ?
[Les:] It is
August 04, 2015 10:07 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* Pushpasis Sarkar; Hannes Gredler; stephane.litkow...@orange.com;
> Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Shraddha
> Hegde
>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
> draft-ietf-
10:07 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Pushpasis Sarkar; Hannes Gredler; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Aissaoui,
Mustapha (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
Wouldn't you agree tha
efits of being able
> > >to merge two networks w/o having to address SID conflicts is worth it -
> > >that is a judgment call on which the operators need to provide some
> insight.
> > [Pushpasis] IMO, it is easier for the operator to change all the nodes in
> > networ
tf.org;
> Shraddha Hegde
> Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-
> yang
>
> Hi Les,
>
> I see that you have taken the network consolidation as the example :) Please
> find some more comments inline..
>
> Thanks
> -Pushpasis
>
l one).
>
>
> Les
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psar...@juniper.net]
>> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:14 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Hannes Gredler;
>> stephane.litkow...@orange.com
>> Cc: Uma Chunduri; Aiss
Message-
> From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psar...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:14 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Hannes Gredler;
> stephane.litkow...@orange.com
> Cc: Uma Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org;
> Shraddha Hegde
> Subje
Hi Acee,
On 8/3/15, 4:11 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
>Hi Pushpasis,
>
>On 8/3/15, 6:13 AM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar"
> wrote:
>
>>Hi Les,
>>
>>On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:
>>
>>>What is more problematic is supporting multiple labels for the same
Hi Pushpasis,
On 8/3/15, 6:13 AM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar"
wrote:
>Hi Les,
>
>On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:
>
>>What is more problematic is supporting multiple labels for the same
>>prefix - which is one of the consequences of the per-protocol SRGB
Hi Les,
On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:
>What is more problematic is supporting multiple labels for the same
>prefix - which is one of the consequences of the per-protocol SRGB
>approach. I am not saying this is unsupportable - just that it is a more
>difficult problem to s
WSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Uma Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha
> | (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde (shrad...@juniper.net);
> |Pushpasis Sarkar (psar...@juniper.net); Hannes Gredler
> |(han...@juniper.net)
> |Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
&
alf of Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 at 3:52 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura
mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB con
: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
One additional point ...
Assume I am using a virtual router with BGP module from vendor A and OSPF
module from vendor B. Assume the traditinal monolithic physical or virtual
router is not being used.
Who and where would
kowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 at 3:52 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura
mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration f
i, Mustapha
|(Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde (shrad...@juniper.net);
|Pushpasis Sarkar (psar...@juniper.net); Hannes Gredler
|(han...@juniper.net)
|Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
|draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
|
|
|
|Stephane -
|
|
|
|Wh
ailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 7:19 PM
To: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang mod
ge.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 7:19 PM
To: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang model for SR, the SRGB l
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang model for SR, the SRGB list is
configured at SR top level, so it is agnostic to the routing protocol.
We h
g@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang model for SR, the SRGB list is
configured at SR top level, so it is agnostic to the routing protocol.
We had some comment in Dal
tephane.litkow...@orange.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Uma Chunduri
mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-y
ietf.org>>, Uma Chunduri
mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Pushpasis,
On Jul 30, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>
tephane.litkow...@orange.com>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Uma Chunduri
mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-
ietf.org>>, Uma Chunduri
mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Robert, Pushpasis, Shraddha,
I guess I don't understand why this gives you any operational advant
gt;; Shraddha Hegde
(shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>); Pushpasis Sarkar
(psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>); Hannes Gredler
(han...@juniper.net<mailto:han...@juniper.net>)
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-
d...@ericsson.com>>, Pushpasis Sarkar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha
(Mustapha)"
mailto:mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com>>,
Hannes Gredler mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
ar...@juniper.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:16 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Uma
> Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde;
> Hannes Gredler
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuratio
gt;, Shraddha Hegde
mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Pushpassis -
It is clear to me that what you propose is more complex to implement and more
costly in its consumptio
kow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>; Uma
Chunduri; Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha);
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde; Hannes Gredler
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
From: "Les Ginsberg
ar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Stephane -
What is the requirement to have a per-protocol SRGB config?
This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally.
g@ietf.org>>, Pushpasis Sarkar
mailto:psar...@juniper.net>>, Hannes Gredler
mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
[Shraddha] route preference is local to router and the neighbor never knows
what the other is going
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Robert -
From: rras...@gmail.com<mailto:rras...@gmail.com> [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:45 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: stephane.litkow...@oran
ha Hegde ; Hannes Gredler
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:01 PM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stepha
a
(Mustapha)"
mailto:mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com>>,
Hannes Gredler mailto:han...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Robert
nsberg (ginsberg); Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha);
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde
(shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>); Pushpasis Sarkar
(psar...@juniper.net<mailto:psar...@juniper.net>); Hannes Gredler
(han...@juniper.net<mailto:han...@j
niper.net>); Hannes Gredler
(han...@juniper.net<mailto:han...@juniper.net>)
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
>
This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally.
Fundamentally I fully agree with you.
However architect
); Pushpasis Sarkar
(psar...@juniper.net); Hannes Gredler (han...@juniper.net)
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Les,
>
This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally.
Fundamentally I fully agree with you.
However architecturally:
Howe
Hi Les,
>
This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally.
Fundamentally I fully agree with you.
However architecturally:
However at least looking at group of folks who claim that it is impossible
to get same SRGB block in *any* network between two or more vendors I
think Stephan
t:* Friday, July 24, 2015 16:59
*To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha);
LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
*Subject:* RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
>Suggesting that the forwarding ins
)
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi all,
What if we keep the SRGB block config in "segment-routing" global module, and
if we allow for YANG configuration of carving this block inside each protocol
(maybe as a feature) ?
Stephane
From: Um
59
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); LITKOWSKI Stephane
SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
>Suggesting that the forwarding instruction (AKA label) needs to be different
>depending on what protoc
>Suggesting that the forwarding instruction (AKA label) needs to be different
>depending on what protocol provided
>the instruction is completely unnecessary - it simply wastes label space.
[Uma]: Les, No - I never suggested anything like that.
SRGB for a routing instance to be advertised should
>You just need to configure within the IGP instance which SID ranges and which
>label offset it uses and make sure you manage
> any overlap when you request a label from the global SRGB. It is
the SID range and the label offset parameters which are advertised
>by the IG
; stephane.litkow...@orange.com;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Les,
It is really for ease of management that one provides a single context where
the user can manage the label space for the platform. You can assign blocks of
labels for
; stephane.litkow...@orange.com;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Mustapha/Uma -
SRGB is an attribute of segment-routing - if that feature is not enabled there
is no need for an SRGB.
Conceptually (your box is free to implement it
2015 11:24 AM
To: Uma Chunduri; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Umma,
I am saying that SRGB be should configured globally and under the router label
management since that is where one assigns label
.@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>;
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Stephane and all,
The SRGB in the case of MPLS data plane is a dedicated label range to be
assigned for global seg
Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi Stephane and all,
The SRGB in the case of MPLS data plane is a dedicated label range to be
assigned for global segments. So, it is part of label management on a router.
Implementations already allow configuring the lab
assigned to the SRGB among multiple IGP instances and manage the
collisions.
Regards,
Mustapha.
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 1:20 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for
@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
I strongly prefer option 1. The purpose of the SRGB range is to allow devices
in the segment routing domain to use different MPLS label ranges for segment
routing. This is necessary either due to the de
deployments.
--
Uma C.
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 5:49 AM
To: stephane.litkow...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
I strongly prefer option 1. The
e: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 7:19 PM
To: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang model for SR, the SRGB list is
configured
Hi WG,
In the current version of the config Yang model for SR, the SRGB list is
configured at SR top level, so it is agnostic to the routing protocol.
We had some comment in Dallas on difficulties that having common label range
shared between protocols could lead to.
During discussion in our des
65 matches
Mail list logo
