Hi Shraddha, On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi Stephano/Pushpasis, > > Anycast segments provide loose separation of routing planes. If there is a > failure, traffic running over anycast segment is allowed > To failover to different plane. The requirement, this draft tries to > address is the strict routing plane separation. Certain application traffic > Should be restricted to one plane even in case of failure and never cross > over to the other plane. > [Pushpasis] Does this not seem to fit requirements of Policy-Based Routing/Policy-Based-Backup-Selection? > > I'll add a reference to anycast segments and details of how this is > different from anycast SID in the next revision. > [Pushpasis] It will be great if you can add a diagram to illustrate the difference. Maybe I am missing something here :( Thanks -Pushpasis > Rgds > Shraddha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:42 PM > To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; spring@ietf.org; > arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com > Subject: Re: [spring] New Version Notification for > draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt > > Hi Pushpasis, > > I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the > required protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp > drafts, we already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been > done. > > s. > > > > On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > First I must admit that I have not read the entire draft in details... > > > > But from the abstract it seems that for the problem that this draft is > trying to address, a similar problem is already addressed in the Segment > Routing Problem Statement and Use-Case document (RFC 7855, section > 3.3.1.1.1. Disjointness in Dual-Plane Networks). And the same has been > solved using any cast segments as specified in draft-ietf-spring-mpls- > anycast-segment. > > > > Request you to clarify why we need the solution proposed in this draft > over the one proposed in draft-ietf-mpls-anycast-segments.. > > > > Thanks and Best regards, > > -Pushpasis > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > New draft submitted for "separating routing planes using segment > routing". > > Looking for inputs and comments. > > > > PS: The draft erroneously got submitted as individual and not affiliated > to any WG but the intention was to submit it to SPRING WG. > > We will correct it once the submission window opens. Apologies for the > inconvenience. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:57 PM > > To: arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com <arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com>; > Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Arkadiy Gulko < > arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com> > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing- > planes-using-sr-00.txt > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF > repository. > > > > Name: draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr > > Revision: 00 > > Title: Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing > > Document date: 2017-03-13 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 7 > > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulkohegde- > routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr/ > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gulkohegde-routing- > planes-using-sr-00 > > > > > > Abstract: > > Many network deployments arrange the network topologies in two or > > more planes. The traffic generally uses one of the planes and fails > > over to the other plane when there are link or node failure. Certain > > applications require the traffic to be strictly restricted to a > > particular plane and should not failover to the other plane. This > > document proposes a solution for the strict planar routing using > > Segment Routing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > spring@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
