Hi Ruediger, Thanks for the feedback and comments.
On a process standpoint, note that the charter has already been sent to the IESG for review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/history/ > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:48 AM > > 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. The work item is: "o New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour if needed for new usages." " (e.g., local ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing replication structure)" are possible examples. Their purpose is to give a better practical idea of what "forwarding behavior" could represent. It's not a statement that the WG must deliver on "local forwarding ressources" . As a side note, regarding specifically "new types of segments mapping to local forwarding resources", I think one could argue that https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07 could fall into this. But the discussion is moot as this work item has already been carried out by the IS-IS WG, independently of this SPRING charter. Regards, --Bruno > Regards, > > Ruediger > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
