Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote: Weibin, Inline….. Ron Juniper Business Use Only *From:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica ; Joel M. Halpern *Cc:* rtg-...@ietf.org; spr

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Ron, > > On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Weibin, > > > > Inline….. > > > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > *From:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) > > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM

[spring] 答复: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi, I really agree with Zafar. Thanks, Fengwei Qin 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Zafar Ali (zali) 发送时间: 2020年5月28日 03:19 收件人: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Sander Steffann 抄送: spring@ietf.org; Mach Chen; Ron Bonica; 6man; Chengli (Cheng Li); Zafar

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 29/05/2020 12:12, Gyan Mishra wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Ron, On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron Bonica wrote: > Weibin, > > Inline….. > >  Ron > > Juniper Busine

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On 29/05/2020, 12:25, "ipv6 on behalf of Peter Psenak" wrote: On 29/05/2020 12:12, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Peter Psenak > mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > On 28/05/2020 18:55, Ron

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi Wim, > Sander, can you describe your use case. So far the only thing that people has > asked CRH to do is steering and as mentioned we have solutions for those. If > there are others, please share them.. Well, a routing header is obviously for steering, but not only encapsulated payloads ne

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

[long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source routing going to be supported? By having the locally-

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Parag, On 27/05/2020 14:22, Parag Kaneriya wrote: Hello, This is regarding the query for Locator TVL , As per the draft there is flags  D (L2-L1 leaking) and A (anycast ) defined.   Since there is space already exists for other flags , why can’t  R flag is not defined in the main tlv. the

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:12, John Scudder wrote: [long list of individual email addresses trimmed from cc, mailing lists left] Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: if CRH-SIDs are of local significance how is the loose source ro

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT: The CRH-FIB can be populated: o By an operator,

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:33, John Scudder wrote: On May 29, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: how do nodes in the network learn about the local CRH identifier a node X allocated for a prefix residing on node Y? This is also answered in section 4, AFAICT: Th

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of course this objection only applies to the final (“dis

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, On 29/05/2020 16:56, John Scudder wrote: Peter, On May 29, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Peter Psenak > wrote: well, advertising the local CRH identifier for every node and adjacency in the network from every other node is clearly a no-go from the IGP perspective. (Of c

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

I can beat that ;-) AFAIR, my first job in IBM in the 80s was to remove loose source routing code from token ring bridges since it was causing operationally too many problems ... -- tony On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:13 AM Ron Bonica wrote: > Ketan, > > > > Neither of these forwarding methods are u

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Gyan, Thanks again for sharing your perspective and I believe the points you make would certainly contribute in the analysis of different SR mechanisms and their pros/cons. So I definitely see the value of the points that you make and they seem to set the context for the use-cases and requir

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Hi Ron, You are correct and I don't believe I said that the Segment Routing (Spring) work has a special claim on them. My point was that it is a subset of what is covered by Spring architecture. The more important point was that with the use of mapping IDs and mapping FIB, the proposal is com

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi Ron, The problem that I see is that the draft that we are reviewing for adoption does not explain properly how CRH based IPv6 Source Routing works it's evaluation for WG adoption. I do find some of those details in the SRm6 draft which uses CRH but based on your response, we should not be r

Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

John, Draft under the adoption call as well as its author sent 10s if not more messages stating that CRH-SIDs are **locally significant*. * Now after few discussions about scaling aspects of such design choice you are suddenly stating: *" one exemplary solution to your objection is to make use o

Re: [spring] FW: Adoption Call for "The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)"

Hello, looking at the draft what I see is a new data plane (incompatible with anything else that has existed as far) that semantically does the same what MPLS has been doing for over 20 years: mapping a fixed-length label to some kind of rewrite information. While having a different encapsulation

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi Zafar I totally agree with you. The CRH solution is more complicated but does not show any more genuine benefits. There is still no use-case document now to provide an understanding of the intended use of CRH. Thanks Yisong 发件人: spring 代表 Zafar Ali (zali) 发送时间: 2020年5月28日 03:19 收件人: