Hi Changwang,
We have updated the draft according to your comments, please check the latest
draft to see if you are ok with the update 😊
Thanks,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: linchangwang
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 5:07 PM
To: Cheng Li ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-
Hi Jie,
In the terms section, we have listed
SR path: A path described by a segment list [RFC9545].
SRv6 path: A path described by an SRv6 segment list.
In section 3, you also can find some explanation.
In other words, a SRv6 PSID can be used for a segment list, or multiple segment
lists, or
Hi Cheng,
I've reviewed the latest version of this draft, and think it provides a useful
mechanism for SRv6 as RFC 9545 does for SR-MPLS. Thus I support moving it
forward.
I have one small comment which could be considered either before or as part of
the WG LC.
In section 3, it says an SRv
Hi Cheng,
Here are some comments:
1. After supporting SRv6 compression, SL==0 does not necessarily indicate the
last segment endpoint node. Even when SL==0,
the destination address may contain up to 7 compressed uSIDs. The
following description needs to be revised.
Text:
S01. i
Hi WG,
I have reviewed the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment. In my view,
Path Segment provides a useful SRv6 segment for operators.
Best regards,
Shengnan Yue
___
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an
MORE reviews of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
Thank you Zehua, we will add the text in the next revision.
Please see the diff here,
https://github.com/muzixing/SRv6-Path-Segment/blob/main/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10.diff%20(1).html.
Thank you so much for your help!
Cheng
From
Thank you Zehua, we will add the text in the next revision.
Please see the diff here,
https://github.com/muzixing/SRv6-Path-Segment/blob/main/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10.diff%20(1).html.
Thank you so much for your help!
Cheng
From: zehua...@foxmail.com
Sent: Monday, September 9, 20
Hi, Cheng:
1) I think adding this text would be helpful for understanding.
2) Yeah, I think path segment may have more interesting use cases when
considering intermediate nodes, which can be further explored in future
discussions.
Best,
Zehua
From: Cheng Li
Date: 2024-09-06 00:00
To: zehua...
Hi Yao,
Thank you for your review and comments, please see my reply inline.
In order not to add attachment in the email to ML, I uploaded the xml, html and
diff html files in the github repository.
Please down load the diff file to see the diff:
https://github.com/muzixing/SRv6-Path-Segment/blob
Hi WG,
I have reviewed this draft. It provides a method for the application
such as bidirectional tunnel binding, network performance measurement and so
on. I think it's mature and completed. Hope it could be moved forward quickly.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Haojie Wang
China Mobile Resear
Hi Cheng,
Some comments after reading v-09.
Section 3
To identify an SRv6 path, this document defines a new segment called SRv6 Path
Segment. An SRv6 Path Segment will not be used for routing so it should not be
copied to the IPv6 destination address.
[Yao]The word "will" is kind of ambiguous, i
Hi Zehua,
Thanks for your comments! Please see my reply inline.
BR,
Cheng
From: zehua...@foxmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
Hi, Cheng:
Thanks for the
Hi, Cheng:
Thanks for the draft. Just 2 questions here.
4.1. SRH.P-flag
-In some use cases, only the egress needs to process the SRv6 Path Segment,
therefore, the P-flag processing can be done at the egress node only while the
intermediate nodes do not need to process it.
1) I think this para
Hi Bruno,
Yes, you are correct.
I found out that the text of P-flag in IANA was deleted in revision 05, but I
did not mean to delete it, so it might be a mistake.
I added it back in the latest revision in attachments, please see the diff,
hope it can address your comments.
This is the revision
Cheng, SPRING WG
> From: Cheng Li
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:46 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
>
>
> Hi SPRING,
>
> The SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has be
15 matches
Mail list logo
