Ron,
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:14 PM
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Chairs,
I believe that we have two
Hi SPRING WG,
We have large support for the early allocation and no objection.
I'll forward the request to our AD.
Thank you,
--Bruno
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:54 PM
To: SPRING WG
Subject: [spring] dr
Martin,
As per RFC 7120 early allocation process, we'd like to request AD approval for
early allocation of an "Ethernet" value from the "Protocol Numbers" registry
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-9.1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring
Alice,
To the best of my knowledge those two errata (5891 & 5890) are to be ignored.
In particular because:
- as of today in the errata system both errata refers to different RFCs and no
errata refers to RFC 8660
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5890
https://www.rfc-editor.org/er
Ron,
You cannot pre-select or enforce one of the two options you refer to below.
The ICMP behaviors/considerations for SRv6 NET-PGM are the same as in the SRH.
It boils down to: when you generate an ICMP Parameter Problem Message you
follow the logic described in RFC4443 section 2.2 to choose th
Hi Greg,
Inline.
Thank you,
Pablo.
From: Greg Mirsky
Date: Sunday, 12 January 2020 at 04:01
To: “Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)”
Cc: “spring@ietf.org”
Subject: Re: WGLC – draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Pablo,
thank you for your expedient response. Please find my new notes under GI
Let me try asking the question a different way. (I hope I understand
Ron;s question.)
RFC 4443 clearly allows the ICMP source to be the destination address of
the offending packet. You seem to be saying that sometimes that is okay
for SRH / network programming.
At the same time, the SRH d
Pablo,
The problem isn't a statement in the network programming draft. It is an
omission in the network programming draft.
If the network programming draft unequivocally stated that a SID is a unicast
address of the instantiating node, the following text from RFC 4443 would apply:
"If the mes
Hello Bruno.
According to the network programming draft, "Network programming combines
segment routing functions, both simple and complex, to achieve a networking
objective that goes beyond mere packet routing."
Sadly, the document offers little insight as to what those non-routing
objectives
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, 05:29 Joel M. Halpern, wrote:
> Let me try asking the question a different way. (I hope I understand
> Ron;s question.)
>
> RFC 4443 clearly allows the ICMP source to be the destination address of
> the offending packet. You seem to be saying that sometimes that is okay
> f
10 matches
Mail list logo
