Hi Greg,
Thank you for your comment.
It is very good to have your support on this draft.
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark defines the AltMark DOH. In case of SRH, DOH +
SRH can be used to implement the measurement for every node that is an identity
in the SR path.
But, the approach with DOH + SRH re
PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola
Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark
Hi Giuseppe,
thank you for the detailed explanation of what the authors consider as the
problem. In the presentation, you've ment
it disabled on
transit nodes.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:50 AM Giuseppe Fioccola
mailto:giuseppe.fiocc...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
The use of HbH EH does not fit well in the case of SRH. Indeed, with the
AltMark HbH Option, it is possible to monitor every router on the pat
Dear All,
I support the adoption as coauthor.
The relevant IPRs, which are almost the same as RFC9343, will be disclosed soon.
Regarding the aspects noted by the chairs, it is assumed that only the routers
identified in the SRH segment list can read the SRH TLV and perform the
measurement. All
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your comments.
Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 3:41 AM
To: Joel Halpern
Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6man
Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encaps
IOAM there would be the
same two mechanisms as well: see draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options and
draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 2:11 AM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola
Cc: Joel Halpern ; SPRING WG List ; 6man
Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG
Hi Xiao,
Thank you for the feedback.
As also discussed with Greg, this is a general issue if you want to add on-path
information for SRv6 and avoid some limitations with the option header (RFC
9098 and draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits). I think that, for SRv6, a more robust way
can be to integrate the
Hi Greg,
It is a good suggestion. A new section with recommendations and deployment
considerations would help. We can surely add it in the next revision.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 6:10 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola
Cc: Joel Halpern ; SPRING WG List ; 6man
Hi Gyan,
Thank you for your support!
Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Joel Halpern
Cc: 6man ; SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encaps
Hi All,
Looking at the last comments, I think that the draft can be revised by adding a
new section on deployment recommendations.
As already noted and specified in RFC 9343, the use of DOH + SRH is equivalent
to SRH TLV but this approach requires two extension headers and it can have
well-know
Hi Ketan,
Thank you for your comments.
I plan to revise the draft and add a new section on deployment recommendations.
Anyway, I think that the choice between DOH and SRH TLV may be a more general
decision that should be taken by SPRING and 6MAN. Indeed, the same concern
involves all the teleme
17, 2023 5:20 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola ; SPRING WG List
; 6man
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [spring] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header
encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
Hey Ketan,
> The encodings are exactly identical - zero difference (from a quick read).
, February 17, 2023 10:39 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar ; Giuseppe Fioccola
; SPRING WG List ; 6man
Subject: Re: [spring] [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header
encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method
Hi Robert,
I think you've brought up an excellent point. Perhaps
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the update.
We intend to work on a new version of the draft soon.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 11:41 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Regarding adoptio
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for your comment.
Please find my reply inline tagged as [GF].
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola
Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6man ; Greg Mirsky
; Joel Halpern
Subject: RE: [IPv6] WG Adoption call for
always welcome.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Joel Halpern ; SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
Hi Ketan,
Thanks a lot for your revision.
My answers inline tagged as [GF]
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 12:12 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ; Susan Hares
; i...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] IPR Call
contributions on related documents, we could also cooperate on that.
So, I agree, there is no need to add this into draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit so
far.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ; Susan
Hi All,
I have read it and support WG adoption for this draft that provides a mechanism
based on resource-aware SIDs in order to build SR based VTNs for Enhanced VPN.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12
work item of the Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG) WG of the IETF.
Title: Benchmarking Methodology for Segment Routing
Authors: Giuseppe Fioccola
Eduard Vasilenko
Paolo Volpato
Luis Miguel Contreras
Bruno Decraene
Name:draft-ietf-bmwg-sr
Hi All,
Just a reminder about the review request below.
Please take a look and provide feedback to the BMWG mailing list.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 11:47 AM
To: 'spring@ietf.org' ; 'srv6...@i
21 matches
Mail list logo
