gt;
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:31 AM
> > To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com
> > Subject: Re: [spring] draft-
ge.com
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
> call
>
> Uma,
>
> I don't know whether you need a text in the draft/RFC to use some
> functionality one way or the other. The fact is that SRMS is a SID
> provisioning
> tool. You can
2016 11:03 AM
To: Uma Chunduri; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG
adoption call
Hi Uma,
On 5/12/16 19:49 , Uma Chunduri wrote:
Stefano,
Thanks for your response.
&g
gt; From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM
> To: Uma Chunduri
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
> bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>;
> spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> Su
ssage-
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM
To: Uma Chunduri
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
call
On May 6, 2016,
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:46 AM
To: Uma Chunduri
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
call
Dear WG,
Draft has been accepted as a WG document.
Authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
Thanks,
--Bruno and John
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:55 AM
>
> > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM
> To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
> call
>
> Uma –
>
> To rest
Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
call
Uma -
To restate, the problem being addressed here is to guarantee consistent use o
Les,
Your draft represents a view from only a single domian perspective and a
lot of wording there seems to imply that conflict resolution must be global
per router and does not depend on the RIB/FIB context.
Perhaps you are not considering identical SIDs to be used for example by
L3VPN customer
(ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
call
Les,
With all due respects, cross protocol verification of prefix and SID conflicts
as an "architectural change" and it can severely impact th
ot applicable to all protocols.
In-line [Uma]:
--
Uma C.
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:11 PM
To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:31 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption
call
Dear Authors,
Have few comments on the draft:
1.
As I indicated during meeting - I am not
rrent version of the draft how we can cross verify
SID/Prefix conflict across the protocol.
Can you clarify this?
--
Uma C.
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM
To: spring@ie
Support.
From an operator's point of view I see strong need for covering this topic.
Best regards, Martin
Am 14.04.16 um 09:50 schrieb bruno.decra...@orange.com:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been
requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-r
Support adoption...
-Jon
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
+1
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 09:51
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting
Support.
Regards,
Nagendra
On 4/14/16, 3:50 AM, "spring on behalf of 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 list with your comments, i
Support. Very much needed
Ahmed
On 4/14/2016 12:50 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 list with your comments, including although n
Same here
On 4/14/16, 12:49 AM, "spring on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)"
wrote:
>As reviewer not aware on IPR related to this draft
>
>
>
>
>On 13/04/16 20:32, "spring on behalf of EXT Martin Pilka"
> wrote:
>
>>Hello Bruno,
>>I am also not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Yes/support, very much needed guideline on conflict resolution!
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> bruno.decra...@orange.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM
>> To: spring@ietf.org
>&g
Support as co-author.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:55 AM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolu
I support WG adoption. The conflict resolution document is required for
standard SID conflict error handling across all protocols and vendors.
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/14/16, 3:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com"
wrote:
>Dear WG,
>
>As we discussed at our meeting last week, working g
Support the WG adoption as co-author.
thanks,
Peter
On 4/14/16 09:50 , 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 list with your comments, incl
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
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:51 AM
>
> 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 list with your comments, including although not l
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 list with your comments, including although not limited to
whether or not you support adoption.
Thanks,
--John and Bruno
__
As reviewer not aware on IPR related to this draft
On 13/04/16 20:32, "spring on behalf of EXT Martin Pilka"
wrote:
>Hello Bruno,
>I am also not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
>Thanks,
>Martin
>
>
>On 13/04/16 09:57, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>> Working Group,
>>
>> The autho
Hello Bruno,
I am also not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks,
Martin
On 13/04/16 09:57, 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
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
Hi Bruno,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
thanks,
Peter
On 4/13/16 09:56 , 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 mail star
Support (as co-author).
I am not aware of any relevant IPR.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:57 AM
> To: spring@ietf.org; draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
> Subject: dr
Working Group,
The authors of draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution believe that the
document is ready to be considered for working adoption.
This mail starts the IPR poll.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution?
If so, has this IPR been disclos
(ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 00:03
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx,
> Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-r
; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Given the comments from Stephane and Bruno I am inclined to think the entire
topic of invalid SRGBs need not be discussed at all in the conflict-resolution
draft as the SR
ange.com
> > [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:58 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri;
> Henderickx,
> > Wim (Wim)
> > Subj
com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 13:30
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Stephane -
Thanx for the qu
es
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Bruno
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:22 AM
> > > To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); LITKOWSKI
g; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Stefano Previdi
> (sprevidi); LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Hi Les,
>
> Thanks for the text. Looks good 2 me.
>
> 2 comments:
> - "Whe
no IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx,
> Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Hi Les,
>
> Many thanks for the text proposal.
> I agree on most of the proposal expect :
> " When
>t
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:22 AM
> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
> Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx,
> Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTEN
To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Now that draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt is available, here i
; (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 6:04 AM
> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Stephane Litkowski
> Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri;
> Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTE
age-
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:52 AM
> To: Stephane Litkowski; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org;
> Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution:
gt;
> Stephane
>
>
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 01:13
> To: Uma Chunduri; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-gi
no Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 18:39
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating
> other
sence/validity of SRGB advertisements./*
*//*
*From:*bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:30 AM
*To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
*Cc:* spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
*Subject:* RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resol
Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating other
drafts
Hi Stephane,
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 6:12 PM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> My worry is that tomorrow we will have a new protocol, and th
gt; From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 17:08
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updatin
ards,
Stephane
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 17:08
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resol
insberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:21
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating
> other drafts
>
> Stephane -
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:21
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating other
drafts
Stephane -
From: stephane.l
Stephane -
From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:27 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating other
drafts
Hi Les
-resolution draft.
Best Regards,
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 17:50
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating other
drafts
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Wim -
From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-l
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:13 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
Thanks for the
(ginsberg); LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
[SLI] I'm was not suggesting to use only Adj-SID ... as I also do not see a
real use case for that. I'm just saying that the sp
nuary 12, 2016 9:50 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Les,
>
> Please see inline [Bruno2]
>
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [m
: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Bruno –
Taking a step back – resummarizing my position:
1)SRGB configuration is a local matter. Conforming to the specification
requirement of NOT advertising overlapping SRGB ranges is totally within the
control of the local
ilto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>"
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Wim Henderickx
mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
IN
: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Bruno –
Taking a step back – resummarizing my position:
1)SRGB configuration is a local matter. Conforming to the specification
requirement of NOT advertising overlapping SRGB ranges is totally within the
control of the
spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>
[mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:51 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.o
.fe...@hpe.com>>, Bruno Decraene
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>
Cc: Martin Horneffer mailto:m...@nic.dtag.de>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [sprin
c.dtag.de>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Wim -
From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:51 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
Please see inline 1
t;, Bruno Decraene
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>
Cc: Martin Horneffer mailto:m...@nic.dtag.de>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring]
] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Don -
From: Fedyk, Don [mailto:don.fe...@hpe.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 3:06 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim);
bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE
tf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Wim –
Please explain to me how the receivers – who you are proposing to make one of
the choices below – know what the node which adverti
); Fedyk, Don; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Wim –
Please explain to me how the receivers – who you are proposing to make one of
the choices below – know
) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Fedyk, Don; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org; LITKOWSKI
Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Don, I
ilto:m...@nic.dtag.de>>,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hi Wim
If I understand your Opt
: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hello Les, Acee, Stephane, everyone,
happy new year!
>From an operator's (carrier's) point of view I clearly and strongly support
>this alternative solution: Treat an inconsistent set of SRGB announcements
neffer;
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Folks –
This thread is about SRGB inconsistency. SRGB inconsistency is an INTRA-node
issue. There is no SRGB conflict issue between nodes.
There will be a sep
(ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 5:37 PM
To: Fedyk, Don; HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim); bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Folks –
This thread is about
; LITKOWSKI
Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hi Wim
If I understand your Option 1) it can occur, for example, if two nodes that
have a conflicting SRGB but they are not directly connected and as such there
can be a race
: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
I believe we agree to minimise the network impact when SRGB data is
inconsistent.
Option 1 is we ignore a advertisements of some nodes. The main issue I see with
this is determining who is right/wrong. Implementation is
lt;mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hi Wim,
I read that you are pointing out the difficulty to identify the inconsistency.
work is needed in the
WG.
-- Bruno
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 6:22 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
; LITKOWSKI
Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
If you avoid an inconsistency in an SRGB announcement there is multiple
scenario’s in which you determine who is right/wrong:
* Assume you are in a startup scenario, it is very hard
uary 06, 2016 11:19 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Cc: Martin Horneffer; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTEN
:26
*To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
*Cc:* Stewart Bryant; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org;
DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
*Subject:* Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Stephane,
IP addresses are not used in path computation. Those are just leaves.
You can easily compute
(ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; DECRAENE Bruno
IMT/OLN
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Stephane,
IP addresses are not used in path computation. Those are just leaves. You can
easily compute topology by just using nodes and links without IP addresses.
SIDs should have
sberg); spring@ietf.org; DECRAENE
> Bruno IMT/OLN
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
>
>
>
> > On 8 Jan 2016, at 09:39, <
> stephane.litkow...@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > [SLI] Anycast SID is not a conflict because the IP prefix i
inherit IP path).
-Original Message-
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 14:52
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: Robert Raszuk; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; DECRAENE Bruno
IMT/OLN
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring
> On 8 Jan 2016, at 09:39,
> wrote:
>
> [SLI] Anycast SID is not a conflict because the IP prefix is the same.
Taking a long term view why conflate anycast SID with an IP address? SIDs are
instructions not addresses, and we may wish to use them to instruct well known
operation in the netwo
berg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Hi,
So we agree that you can't write a draft to define SRGB errors as those are
local design choices. Done with that :)
[SLI] Yes, see my reply to Les ☺
As far as "SID conflict&quo
; of
> > >scope but we may need to think about it.
> >
> > [Bruno] Excellent point. But as the resolutions rules proposed in
> > draft- ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution do not seem achieve the
> > above goal, I had assume that this current text from
> > dr
...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Raszuk
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 07, 2016 17:19
> *To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
> *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
>
>
>
&g
[mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 17:19
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Hi Stephane,
> For example, if user tries
>and a Prefix TLV (e.g.: TLV135) with its Prefix-SID are received, the
>> > >Prefix-SID advertised within the Prefix TLV MUST be preferred while
>> > >the MS entry MUST be ignored."
>> > >
>> > >[SLI] Giving a preference to MS entri
to think about it.
> >
> > [Bruno] Excellent point. But as the resolutions rules proposed in
> > draft- ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution do not seem achieve the
> > above goal, I had assume that this current text from
> > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
[SLI] I'm was not suggesting to use only Adj-SID ... as I also do not see a
real use case for that. I'm just saying that the specification does not prevent
it. So may be let's prevent it ...s
: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 11:19 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: Martin Horneffer; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); spring@ietf.org; LITKOWSKI
Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
within the Prefix TLV MUST be preferred while
the MS entry MUST be ignored."
This text should be removed - the protocol drafts should simply reference the
spring-conflict-resolution draft. Indeed one of the motivations for
spring-conflict-resolution draft is to unblock the protocol drafts and
;,
"spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>"
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, Stephane Litkowski
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hi Wim,
Many thanks for taking part in the discussion.
RAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Hello Bruno, Les and everyone,
while I do appreciate and understand Les' motivation to forward this document
quickly, I would rather support Bruno's approach to f
ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Hi Les,
Pls find more inline.
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 00:34
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; DECRAENE Bruno IM
Hi Les,
Thanks for initiating the thread on SRGB inconsistency.
Please see some comments inlined [Bruno]
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 6:55 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution:
Hi Les,
Please see points inline [Bruno]
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 12:34 AM
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 18:27
To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Hi Les, all
As an
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
