Hi Bruno, one comment on the proposed agenda,
<snip> o New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing replication structure) if needed for new usages. [RG] The multicast part has been agreed. I personally am not interested in work on "new types of segments mapping to local forwarding resources". This solution likely requires maintaining state in core nodes. Such a solution makes sense, if resources are scarce and different products compete for bandwidth in a range similar as the core network to be sliced itself. This isn't the case in most networks today. If this work is to be scheduled, I'd prefer to wait until there are use cases requiring it. I've asked for those, but didn't yet receive a response. Should "new types of segments mapping to local forwarding resources" be a multicast requirement only, my question is, whether this is a new requirement and needs to be maintained. I'm not a multicast expert but think to recall, that providing separate forwarding resources to replicated packets within router hardware is state of the art. If that's the case, what's new here? If "new types of segments mapping to local forwarding resources" is limited to user access interfaces of SR domain edge nodes, the text should say so. Regards, Ruediger _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
