Ron, SRv6 Replication SID does not need to follow IPv6 multicast address format since it is an IPv6 unicast address like any other SRv6 SID.
-Rishabh On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:09 AM Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > Rishabh, > > > > Is Section 2 of the SR replication segment draft compliant with Section > 2.7 of RFC 4291? Could it be brought into compliance by using the high > order 16 bits that RFC 4291 recommends? > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Srcomp <srcomp-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Weiqiang Cheng > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:28 AM > *To:* 'Rishabh Parekh' <risha...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* src...@ietf.org; 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Srcomp] [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hi Rishabh, > > Thanks for your comments. > > It is good point, and DT will consider the it in. > > > > B.R. > > Weiqiang Cheng > > > > *发件人**:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org <spring-boun...@ietf.org>] > *代表 *Rishabh Parekh > *发送时间:* 2021年2月27日 01:50 > *收件人:* Weiqiang Cheng > *抄送:* src...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List > *主题:* Re: [spring] New drafts from SRCOMP design team > > > > Weiqiang, > > Text quoted below from the SPRING charter indirectly covers > Point-to-Multipoint requirement which is addressed by SR Replication > Segment draft > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce0i_WdUG$> > > New types of segments mapping to forwarding behaviour (e.g., local > > ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing > > replication structure) if needed for new usages. > > For the Point-to-Multipoint compression requirement, what exactly is > "multicast address" in the Metric? Is this an IPv6 multicast address? If > so, it really does not conform to SRv6 data plane. > > > > I would rather consider the SRv6 Replication SID, described in the latest > version of SR Replication segment draft, to be the Metric for measuring > P2MP requirement. Maybe we should also consider adding it to SRv6 > Functionality Section 4.2.1 of the compression requirements draft. > > > > -Rishabh > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:25 AM Weiqiang Cheng < > chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Two drafts have been submitted. Please review them and any comments are > welcomed. > > > > Compression requirement draft -04 version provided two more requirements: > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce1UWnkzI$> > > > > Compression analysis draft -00 provided a skeleton for the analysis of 4 > candidate proposals. > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce4mNqDYS$> > > > > B.R. > > Weiqiang > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VjURp3oglqwAJJ06ixqEz0o9WjgWaU6W5fQ7MthNrQdg-dWAsLJnab_Ce6GLiq7Z$> > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
