Hi WG,
After reading the draft, I understand the motivation of the draft, and how the
mechanism works. I think when implementing Alt-marking in SRv6, using TLV is a
good way, because it is flexible and extensible for future.
I think the draft reach the point of adopting as WG draft, so I suppor
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your reminder. Will read the related threads and ack, thank you!
Respect,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:09 AM
To: draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-for-u...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Cc: bfd-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha
+1, Congratulations to Jim and thank you for the work for SPRING and SFC WG.
Congratulations to Alvaro and welcome! ☺
Respect,
Cheng
发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Greg Mirsky
发送时间: 2023年3月28日 9:48
收件人: Andrew Alston - IETF
抄送: spring@ietf.org
主题: Re: [spring] Changes of AD/Ch
Hi Ketan,
Many thanks for your thorough review, and sorry for my delay.
Please see my reply inline. BTW, the proposed update is attached, authors
please review as well.
You can also review it from the Github repository.
https://github.com/muzixing/SR-MPLS-Path-Segment/commit/343f7efe3f67a0bc2c0
After reading the document, I think this is worth to do, and the idea is valid
in the case that IGP is not used, therefore I support the adoption.
However, IMHO, the logic of the text may need some enhancement, I feel
difficult in reading it, but this may be my problem.
Like Joel and others ment
Hi Han,
Thank you for your reply. It looks good to me.
Li Cheng
From: spring On Behalf Of han
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:27 PM
To: 'Cheng Li'
Cc: 'spring-chairs' ; 'Weiqiang Cheng'
; 'Chongfeng Xie' ;
'spring'
Subject: Re: [sp
Hi Bruno, Stewart and Ketan,
We have upload a new revision to address your comments. Please review the
update.
I also sent emails to you separately, we can follow up the detailed discussion
in those threads if you want.
Hope the update work.
Thanks,
Li Cheng
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Monday
Hi Authors and SPRINGers,
As required by SPRING WG policy, we need to add a section of implementation
status in this draft.
As far as I know, some vendors have implemented the feature of this draft
already, please free feel to share the info to me or to the list, I will
collect it into the draf
ra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 8:47 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: James Guichard ; ketant.i...@gmail.com;
Stewart Bryant ;
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org; SPRING WG
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for the updated draft.
Please see some
I think we can close the issue 1, and I think it can be closed long time ago in
the WG adoption not now.
Like the authors and contributors said, “All SIDs of the SRv6 dataplane
(defined in this document and in other documents) can co-exist in the same SRH.
This make SRv6 a single, consistent da
Thanks for Changwang’s sharing. Yes, these are some typical examples like said.
As long as it follows the rules of C-SID encoding, a user can encode the
C-SIDs in any order he/she likes.
Following your example, another example which can provide better compression is
shown below.
SRH [0]: | r
The resolution works to me, so I believe the proposed resolution is sufficient
to close the issue.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:00 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3
https://datatracker.ietf.org/d
Agree that the issue can be closed.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:00 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #4
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
Issue #4 reads:
In
It looks to be the most reasonable text to me, so I agree to close the issue
and move forward.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:00 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #5
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/d
Agree with Suresh. I believe this issue can be closed.
Thanks,
Cheng
发件人: spring 代表 Suresh Krishnan
发送时间: 2023年8月17日 1:37
收件人: Joel Halpern
抄送: SPRING WG List
主题: Re: [spring] Confirming resolution of issue #2 of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
Hi Joel,
I believe that draft-ietf-6m
pring-mpls-path-segment-11.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
Authors: Weiqiang Cheng
Han Li
Cheng Li
Rakesh Gandhi
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 5:16 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: James Guichard ; ketant.i...@gmail.com;
Stewart Bryant ;
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org; SPRING WG
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your email.
Please see inline [Bruno2]
Orange
-mpls-path-segment-15.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
Authors: Weiqiang Cheng
Han Li
Cheng Li
Rakesh Gandhi
Hi Bruno,
Please see my reply inline. I provide some text to address your comments, any
suggested text is appreciated
Thanks,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Cheng Li ; Stewart Bryant
Cc: Xipengxiao ; spring
Hi Jim,
Many thanks for your review, authors will provide an update to address your
comments and get back to you soon.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:47 PM
To: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org; SPRI
.
This works for me, very short but clear, thanks! Will update it in the next
revision. Thank you again.
Respect,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:40 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: Xipengxiao ; spring@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
Subject: RE
e PSID can only
identify the SID list rather than the actual forwarding path."
BR,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:43 PM
To: 'bruno.decra...@orange.com'
Cc: Xipengxiao ; spring@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
Subject: RE: [spring] I-D
Authors: Weiqiang Cheng
Han Li
Cheng Li
Rakesh Gandhi
Royi Zigler
Name:draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-16.txt
Pages: 17
Dates: 2023-10-12
Abstract:
A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list. A
sub-set of
Hi Matthew,
Many thanks for your review. Very helpful. Please see my reply inline.
Thanks,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Bocci via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 1:59 PM
To: rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf
Thank you Matthew, the new revision has been posted.
Cheng
From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 12:20 PM
To: Cheng Li ; rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; Xipengxiao
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last
Han Li
Cheng Li
Rakesh Gandhi
Royi Zigler
Name:draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-17.txt
Pages: 17
Dates: 2023-11-16
Abstract:
A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list. A
sub-set of segments from the
Hi Eric,
Many thanks for your comments, and sorry for my delay. Please see my reply
inline.
We have updated the draft to address your comments, please double check the
draft to see if it is OK to you.
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-18.txt
St
Hi Rob,
Many thanks for your review and comments. I have updated the draft to address
your comments.
Thank you again!
Cheng
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-19.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/
HTML:
Hi John,
Thank you for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
We have updated the draft according to your comments.
HTMLized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-20
Thank you 😊
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: John Scudder
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com;
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Subject
Hi Andrew,
Many thanks for your review and comments.
Let me reply to your comments in this email and reply to your discuss later in
another email.
Please see inline.
Respect,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Alston via Datatracker
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 8:30 AM
To: T
Hi Lars,
Many thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
The comments are quite common among IESG members, I should try to avoid these
common concerns in next draft 😊
The draft has been updated to address your comments and Andrew comments
together. Please check.
HTMLized:
https://d
-
From: spring On Behalf Of Cheng Li
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:11 AM
To: Andrew Alston ; The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Subject: Re: [spring] Andrew Alston&#
Hi Andrew,
I agree with Stewart and Alexander.
This is a common processing in MPLS, and nothing new is introduced to Path
Segment since it is a normal local label. So I think we might no need to add
text for this ?
As suggested by Bruno, making clear that the Path Segment is a local label can
a
Hi Andrew,
Talking existing labels (Including Explicit Null and others) as existing
implementation, in section 2, we have a paragraph to explain that processing
PSID may have some performance impact.
“
The addition of the PSID will require the egress to read and process the PSID
label in additi
: James Guichard ; Cheng Li
; Stewart Bryant
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Subject: Re: [spring] Andrew Alston's Discuss on
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
That works f
Thank you for your quick reply 😊
Respect,
Cheng
From: Andrew Alston - IETF
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Cheng Li ; James Guichard
; Stewart Bryant
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Subject
Thank you Joel for issuing the WGLC for the draft and the professional and hard
work of handling the process in the past. Appreciated and respect.
As a contributor who contributes a lot of content to this draft, I believe this
draft has been in a stable state and ready for publication, so I supp
Thanks Joel for handling the work, and thanks Pablo for accepting the role.
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR relevant to this draft.
Thanks,
Cheng as a contributor.
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 5:36 PM
To: SPRING WG Lis
After reading the long discussion.
I realize that some people have some concerns of middle box checksum. Though I
do not believe this is a common case, and I do not understand why a middle box
should have this right to check the packet?
* If the middle box does not have the right the check the
I agree with Francois’s point.
Also, if the problem comes from middle box checksum, then I do not believe the
problem exists.
Why a transit node has the right to do so? If it is not an SRv6 Endpoint node,
it should not try to do so.
Btw, EU, USA and other countries may have the Easter holiday f
Thank you Martin for your insight. That is my understanding as well. I think
this is quite clear actually.
Thanks,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 8:51 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] C-SIDs and uppe
As a contributor of the draft, we discussed with authors and SPRING
participants a lot about this, and came out with the text.
Therefore I believe the text is good to me.
Is this text aligned with §8.1/rfc8200 (Upper-Layer Checksums) [2]?
Does anything need to be added, deleted, changed, or clar
Sure, support the adoption, two WG drafts(BGP/PCEP) are waiting for this to
move forward.
Thanks,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 8:57 AM
To: 'Alvaro Retana' ; 'SPRING WG'
Cc: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org; 'spring Chairs'
Subject
Assuming that this is the WG adoption call email, I support the draft to be
adopted since this is an important and valuable work, let's work on it together
and move faster.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 10:42 AM
To: draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ie
Support the adoption. Let’s work on it together 😊
Cheng
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 4:30 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security
Chairs,
This is an important document. I support its adoption.
===
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)
Authors: Cheng Li
Weiqiang Cheng
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
nal Message-
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 6:26 PM
To: Cheng Li ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
Cheng, SPRING WG
> From: Cheng Li
> Sent: Monday
It seems that the attachment were blocked(1 XML file and 1 Diff html file).
The diff html file seems ok in the email to Bruno, so I added it once more here.
I may try to use Github link to share the diff next time to avoid sending
attachments to the list.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Cheng Li
Sent
Thank you so much for your help all the long way. I apologize for my mistake 😊
Respect,
Cheng
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 12:47 PM
To: Cheng Li ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Re][spring] Some comments on draft-ietf
It looks good to me, the revision makes the logic more clear.
BR,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 2:00 AM
To: SPRING WG
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Call for Comments: spring charter Update (Ends Sep/18.2024 /
charter-ie
Hi Lijie,
Yes, it is common for operators to carry multiple services with different
policies over links.
That text is for the use cases that an operator would like to measure the
packets for the paths(identified by its segment list) within its Policy. But on
the egress node, the node will get
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
, it is the PSID.
We might add some text to explain more? You comment or text proposal will be
very welcome!
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Joel Halpern
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 7:18 PM
To: Cheng Li ; LiJie Deng ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Re: spring Digest, Vol 129, Issue 43
I can
/blob/main/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10.diff%20(1).html
Hope it can address your comments.
BR,
Cheng
From: liu.ya...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 8:24 AM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Request for MORE
new term. But if we need to define a new
one, a virtual Path Segment ID or similar one will be ok to me.
Thank you for your comments!
Cheng
From: Joel Halpern
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Cheng Li ; LiJie Deng ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Re: spring Digest, Vol 129
operator
would like to aggregate these segment lists in operation.
Thank you for your comments 😊
Respect,
Cheng
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 5:37 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: Joel Halpern ; LiJie Deng ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Re: spring Digest, Vol 129, Issue 43
, 2024 9:34 AM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: RE: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
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
BTW, you need to download the file to see the html page in your browser.
This link shows the source code of the HTML file. Just let you know.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:26 AM
To: zehua...@foxmail.com
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Re: Request for
IETF.
Title: Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)
Authors: Cheng Li
Weiqiang Cheng
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Dhruv Dhody
Yongqing Zhu
Name:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10.txt
Pages: 15
Dates: 2024-09-09
Abstract:
Segm
Thanks for you quick confirmation!
Bonne soiree!
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:28 PM
To: Cheng Li ; spring@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
zehua...@foxmail.com; liu.ya...@zte.com.cn; 'Joel Halpern'
Subject: RE: [spr
for your support!
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 4:20 AM
To: Cheng Li ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
Hi Cheng,
I&#x
t-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09#section-1-7>
Hope the text can answer your questions. If you have further questions, please
let me know.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 3:50 PM
To: Cheng Li
Cc: Joel Halpern ; LiJie Deng ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [
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
Oh, my bad,
I did not send it to the list. 😊
Resent! Please see the email below.
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 11:11 AM
To: Mach Chen ; Dhruv Dhody ; Mach
Chen ; Weiqiang Cheng ;
Yongqing Zhu
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
Hi SRRING，
It is an interesting idea, and I believe it is worthy to discuss as a WG item.
Regarding the requirement, I trust that we do need some new extension to
support this, after double checking RFC8986.
Rethinking how to design the solution, I agree with the document that this
solution may
Hi Gyan,
Sorry I don’t understand the case you mentioned. Could you please provide an
easy example? How a SID will be shifting in a GSID container?
Respect,
Cheng
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 6:58 AM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes)
@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ; SPRING WG ;
Chengli (Cheng Li)
Subject: Re: [spring] SR Policy: per-SL reverse
Hi Mike,
You are right that the SR Policy architecture draft does not talk about reverse
SLs. But it also doesn't talk about bidirectional paths or aspects like the us
Hi Springers,
I can not join the meeting. Only get the following text in the page. Anyone can
join the meeting?
"the spring room is still closedalmost ready, just a bit more
patience...Session scheduled for 27 Jul 2022 at 10:00 PM"
https://wws.conf.meetecho.com/conference/?group=spring
Thank
Agree with Adrian and Robert, that is also my understanding of implementation
status section in a draft.
Copy from Adrian’s first email.
- I support the idea of capturing the implementations status of the SPRING work
during its development and at the time of publication request.
- I am strongly
Foeget to cc to SPRING WG :（
Happy new year!
李呈 Cheng Li
Email:
chengl...@huawei.com">chengl...@huawei.com<mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)mailto:chengl...@huawei.com>>
To: bruno.decraenemailto:bruno.decr
Agree! I thought these problems have already been closed for a while since we
have a lot of discussion for a while.
After two months not paying attention to the mailing list, the discussion is
still there?
Clearly, we had a lot of discussion already, please refs to the links in the
below emai
+1
Cheng
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gengxuesong (Geng
Xuesong)
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:19 PM
To: Lizhenbin ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; 'SPRING WG
List'
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: RE: Request to close the LC
+1.
Not to make a decision, but to agree with Bruno. Many thanks for your
information, very useful to me :)
Best Regards,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 8:49 PM
To: S Moonesamy
...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:55 AM
To: Weiqiang Cheng ; Dhruv Dhody
; Mach Chen ; Chengli (Cheng Li)
; Mach Chen ; Rakesh Gandhi
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-05.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-li-spring-srv6
Hi Ketan,
Many thanks for your comments, and sorry for my delay, please see my reply
inline.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 4:18 PM
To: Susan Hares ; 'IDR List'
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adopt
Hi Aijun,
Many thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline.
Best regards,
Cheng
From: Aijun Wang [mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn]
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:08 AM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Susan Hares
; IDR List ; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for your reply, please see my reply inline.
Cheng
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:37 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Susan Hares ;
'IDR List'
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-p
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for your comments! Sure, will add text to describe it. BTW, if we need
to write a new draft, you are really welcome to do it together!
Best,
Cheng
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 7:33 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Susan
Hi authors,
In section 2.4 of [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06], introduced how
the node-address of "Originator of CP(Candidate Path)" is generated when the
Protocol-Origin is BGP. It says:
"Protocol-Origin is BGP SR Policy, it is provided by the BGP component on
the headend and
Agree. I definitely needs time to go through the documents, seems some revision
are updated.
If we want to solve the overhead of SRv6, we may have some options to be
discussed. Like G-SRv6[1][2], please focus on the SRv6 compression part, if you
need to understand it very soon.
For sure, a bra
Well, when I read the latest revision, these terms are modified to other words,
but still feel similar.
Also, I still see the sentence in Introduction:
“
The CRH allows IPv6 source nodes to specify the path that a packet
takes to its destination.
“
To Ron,
is it a Source Packet Routing para
Hi Ron,
When reading the CRH draft, I have a question about how CRH support SFC?
For example, we have a SID List [S1, S2, S3, S4, S5], and S3 is a SFC related
SID, how to indicate that? By PSSI? [1]
But how to know which segment endpoint node/egress node should process this
PSSI? At the beginn
tps:/tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt-04.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UD4vf0darQ9cskFhH1fJ9jwZJ-nIciQxgVnf1219YuyyaNcgvNdRUdkjwNmXwyHT$>.
From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.or
AM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; 6man <6...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
there are a number of Internet Drafts describing a range of ways of using SFC
NSH with MPLS. The same choices appear to be available with CRH. If folks are
intereste
,
Cheng
李呈 Cheng Li
Mobile: +86-15116983550
Email: c...@huawei.com<mailto:c...@huawei.com>
From: Ron Bonicamailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>
To: Chengli (Cheng
Li)mailto:c...@huawei.com>>;6man<6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>>
Hi Ron,
Thank you to share the facts of RFC8200.
Could you please explain how CRH supports SFC by the first Destination Options
header as you mentioned in you previous email?
Or how to support performing a specific behavior at a specify node along the
path by using CRH?
You know, when we add
ca [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:29 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Tom Herbert ;
Brian E Carpenter
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
Cheng,
The CRH doesn't attempt the address SFC. That
Hi Ketan,
Sorry for my delay, I saw the update, and it has addressed my comments, many
thanks.
Best,
Cheng
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li) ;
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol
Good news to have two new co-chairs, since there are so many works in SPRING.
Welcome Jim and Joel! Also, many thanks to Rob for your work and contributions!
Respect!
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: Monday,
Hi SPRING,
Yes I support the document.
YANG model is an important work for SRv6, and the YANG model has reached the
consensus among vendors and operators, so I support the adoption.
Respect,
C.L
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2
Yes, support. The idea of SR for enhanced VPN is really clear and straight
forward, and it is needed for sure.
Since the text is stable and mature, I support the adoption.
Respect,
Cheng
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:
Hi Joel and Mach,
Yes, we should consider to bypass or not bypass the node in different cases.
Like Joel said, we can not skip the firewall, while it can be fine to skip a TE
node, if the repair path meets the TE SLA requirements.
Regarding these two cases, AFAIK, two documents describes the re
direction, that is wonderful!
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Alexander Vainshtein
; Martin Horneffer
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk ;
ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com
Hi PSF and Ketan,
IMHO, the SRv6 SID Structure TLV can be included in the sub-TLV field of SRv6
END.X TLV, SRv6 LAN END.X TLV (for adj SIDs) and SRv6 SID NLRI(for node SIDs).
So I guess it may be a typo, the SRv6 End should be SRv6 End.X. We can double
check the IANA section.
But from the tex
@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; i...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re:[spring] [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03
Hi Ketan, Cheng,
Thanks for your reply.
I have get clear answer to my questions.
The third question is meaningless once the typo is corrected.
I also
Hi WG,
Support. However, there are some encoding format changes among versions, hope
the encoding format can be stable in the following revision ASAP.
Many thanks for the authors' contribution!
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thur
Hi WG,
I have read the document and think this document is useful. Support the
adoption.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subje
Agree with Bruno’s comments on section 4.
I think this is more like an Proxy mechanism. Also, I only see NSH over SR-MPLS
is illustrated in the figure. How about SRv6？
When a packet has to be forwarded to an SF attached to an SFF, the
SFF performs a lookup on the prefix SID
Prefix SID is onl
Hi SPRING,
Support as a co-author. SRv6 Path Segment is useful to identify an SRv6 Path,
so that it can be used in use cases like PM, 1+1 Protection and OAM. I think it
can be a good basis for Path related services. Also, comments and
contributions are welcome!
Many thanks,
Cheng
From: spr
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
