Hi Greg,
Please see [ZA] in-line.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
From: ipv6 on behalf of Greg Mirsky
Date: Friday, February 28, 2020 at 11:45 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: John Scudder , SPRING WG
, 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Hi
Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* spring *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 11:22 AM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk
> *Cc:* John Scudder ; SPRING WG <
> spring@ietf.org>; 6man WG
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft
Even better !
Thank you,
R.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:44 PM Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> thank you for you consideration. Pablo and I had discussed references to
> OAM in the SRv6 network programming draft. Pablo and authors kindly agreed
> to remove all references to OAM and draft-ietf-6m
Hi Robert,
thank you for you consideration. Pablo and I had discussed references to
OAM in the SRv6 network programming draft. Pablo and authors kindly agreed
to remove all references to OAM and draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. As we
are discussing the network programming
draft, draft-ietf-6man-spr
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: John Scudder ; SPRING WG
; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Hi Robert,
you've asked about a possible operational drawback of PSP. I think that for OAM
PSP has decremental
Greg,
I agree. Moreover I would suggest to add such text that PSP endpoint
behaviours should or must not be set for any OEM packets. Would that help ?
Thx,
R.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:22 PM Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> you've asked about a possible operational drawback of PSP. I think
Hi Robert,
you've asked about a possible operational drawback of PSP. I think that for
OAM PSP has decremental effect on the usefulness of performance
measurements as there's no obvious information to identify the path a
packet traversed.
Regards,
Greg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:55 AM Robert Raszu
Joel,
Let me observe that as it has been said already such end device may support
SR but SRH above say N SIDs is handled only in slow path.
In the same time let me observe that while slow path may be just fine for a
lot of time such device also is to receive 5 well engineered high
bandwidth strea
While it is true that some traffic only needs steering in one direction,
I have real trouble figuring out how an operator would dare deploy an SR
edge device that could not steer incoming traffic. Either they do not
need SR, or they can expect that some traffic will need it in both
directions.
: Ron Bonica mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>;
daniel.vo...@bell.ca<mailto:daniel.vo...@bell.ca>
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
I have an additional observation, or question, about Dan’s scenario. Almost all
communication is bidirect
Hi John,
> I have an additional observation, or question, about Dan’s scenario.
Almost all communication is bidirectional.
> Presumably this means a router that’s the tail end of an SRv6 path in one
direction is the head end in the other.
While your observation is correct that most TCP connection
4
> *To: *"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
> *Cc: *SPRING WG
> *Subject: *Re: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> In-line response
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:16 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Hi John,
Please check inline below.
From: spring On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: 28 February 2020 02:41
To: SPRING WG ; 6man WG
Cc: Ron Bonica ; daniel.vo...@bell.ca
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
I have an additional observation, or
February 25, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>
Cc: SPRING WG mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Gyan,
As I (and other WG members) have explained in the past, PSP is not trying to
p
Gyan,
Inline [PC1].
Thanks,
Pablo.
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 08:14
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
In-line response
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:1
stating a use case?) – but PSP?
Andrew
From: ipv6 on behalf of Robert Raszuk
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 22:11
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: SPRING WG , 6man WG , "Pablo Camarillo
(pcamaril)"
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Ron,
Ho
ase in which it is required and b) discourages its
> use in all other cases.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* spring *On Behalf Of *Pablo Camarillo
> (pcamaril)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:17 AM
> *T
ring On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Gyan Mishra
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Gyan,
As I (and other WG members) have explained in the past, PSP is not trying to
provide any
/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ErcErN39RIlzkL5SKNVAeEWpnAI>
>
>
>
> I don't see the point of starting a new thread from zero that discusses
> the same thing.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Gyan Mishra
> *Date: *Tuesday, 25 February
same thing.
Cheers,
Pablo.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Smith
Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 00:40
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: Ron Bonica , SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020
gt; Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
>
>
>
> I agree with the sentiments expressed below
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> From: spring On Behalf Of Mar
hread from zero that discusses the
same thing.
Cheers,
Pablo.
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 00:35
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: Ron Bonica , SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
PSP has historic
eing closer to the edge, may be less heavily loaded than the
> penultimate segment endpoint.
>
>
>
> Can anyone articulate a better justification for PSP? If not, why test the
> limits of RFC 8200 over it?
>
>
>
>
> *Date: *Monday, 24 February 2020 at 16:27
> *To: *Andrew Alston , Mark Smith <
> markzzzsm...@gmail.com>, Sander Steffann
> *Cc: *SPRING WG , "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <
> pcama...@cisco.com>
> *Subject: *RE: [spring] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-spring
at 16:27
To: Andrew Alston , Mark Smith
, Sander Steffann
Cc: SPRING WG , "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Subject: RE: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
Folks,
We may need to ask the following questions:
1) Does PSP violate letter of RF
Camarillo (pcamaril)
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
I agree with the sentiments expressed below
Andrew
From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On
Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Monday, 24 February 2020 00:50
To: Sander Steffann mail
I agree with the sentiments expressed below
Andrew
From: spring On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Monday, 24 February 2020 00:50
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: SPRING WG ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt
On Mon, 24 Feb
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 07:47 Sander Steffann, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > We have published a new update to
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. This revision simplifies the
> counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer header processing as per [2]
> and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3
Hi,
> We have published a new update to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
> This revision simplifies the counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer
> header processing as per [2] and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3].
I still oppose the segment popping flavours in section
Hi all,
We have published a new update to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
This revision simplifies the counters as per [1], clarifies the upper layer
header processing as per [2] and removes the reference to the OAM draft [3].
Thank you for the review and feedback.
Cheers,
Pablo.
30 matches
Mail list logo
