Les,
Upon reflection this sounds imminently reasonable.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:06 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: Re: [s
Robert,
Comments inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: idr wg; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] [Idr] New draft for data center gateways
Dear Authors,
Question 1:
I agree with Acee
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 5, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
I like the proposal below much better than keeping track of the overlapping and
non-overlapping ranges and dynamically resolving conflicts as the routing state
changes. While p
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-spring-p2mp-transport-chain-01
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 4:45 PM
To: Rishabh Parekh
Cc: SPRING WG ; Voyer, Daniel
Subject: Re: [spring] SR replication segment
Gyan,
You're most welcome.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 5:26 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Rishabh Parekh ; SPRING WG ; Voyer,
Daniel
Subject: Re: [spring] SR replication segment for P2MP MDT
Thanks John!!
Did a
Hi,
Snipper, comments inline [JD1].
Yours Irrespectively,
John
2. As mentioned several times during the discussion, this underlay construct
has both the topology and resource attributes. With the term “resource group”,
it is clear that it is a set of network resources, then how about the topo
Robert,
I think you’re right that ‘SR Path Id’ is the wrong term and that it should be
‘SR Segment List Id’. We developed this draft in response to requests from our
customers that, as described in our draft, have an interface on a node in the
interior of an SR network whose utilization is abo
Hi,
We are dealing with an SR network in which the data plane is MPLS rather than
IP.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:47 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura ; Robert Raszuk
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accountin
Sasha,
We did not use the term SR-TE LSP in our draft and I think it is misleading. I
suggested to Robert in another email that we use the term ‘SR Segment List’
since that is what the SR Architecture document describes.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On
Zafar,
Comment inline.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:25 AM
To: Xuxiaohu ; Greg Mirsky
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
; spring
; mpls
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring]
Ruediger,
There is also the possibility of using a GAL w/ a new fixed size GACH
containing the SR Segment List Id. This is similar to Robert’s suggestion of
using a VXLAN header.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ruediger.g...@telekom.de
Sent:
Hi,
This I completely agree with, however, given that we have had similar counters
in LSRs since the advent of MPLS/RSVP-TE I am not sure this is a “complicated
function”.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
Sent: Wednesday, November 15,
Robert,
We are more than open to aternatives.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:53 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: David Allan I ; m...@ietf.org; spring
Subject: RE: [mpls] Whether both E2E
Hi,
Or even just an extended email.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:59 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: m...@ietf.org; spring ; David Allan I
; John E Drake
Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Whether both
ShaoWen,
We are not talking about per-flow counting but rather per SR Segment list
counting.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ShaoWen Ma
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:43 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-
To: John E Drake
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; z...@cisco.com; rob...@raszuk.net; m...@ietf.org; Ext -
ruediger.g...@telekom.de ; adr...@olddog.co.uk;
Michael Gorokhovsky
Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in
draft
: John E Drake
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; rob...@raszuk.net; m...@ietf.org; z...@cisco.com
Subject: AW: [mpls] [spring] redux: Special purpose labels in
draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
John,
that’s not what I’m looking for
Himanshu,
Good point. We also need to be able to turn on and off packet marking by the
ingress routers.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:35 PM
To: Mach Chen ; Zafar Ali (zali) ; Greg
Mirsky
, 2017 8:44 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; m...@ietf.org;
spring ; David Allan I
Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement
for MPLS-SR is needed?
Hi John,
I think I did but let me restate ...
Imagine we have a network like below:
R1 --- R2
Robert,
Upon reflection, the same question can be asked of R4.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:34 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; m...@ietf.org;
spring ; David Allan I
Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME
Dave,
Comment inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Allan I
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:56 AM
To: Mach Chen ; Greg Mirsky ;
Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
; spring
; mpls ; Michael
Stewart,
The intent is to have a general MPLS capability, as I think the draft mentions,
and the draft is targeted at the MPLS WG.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:45 PM
To: Mach Chen ; stephane
:26 PM
To: John E Drake ; Ext - ruediger.g...@telekom.de
; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org; z...@cisco.com; rob...@raszuk.net; m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] redux: Special purpose labels in
draft-hegde-spring-traffic
Hi,
Comments inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 1:12 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
; spring
; mpls
Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Special
Daniel,
There work group adoption process started several months ago. We asked Loa to
initiate the process and he asked four members of the MPLS review team to
review the draft, which they subsequently did, with all four indicating that
they thought the draft should be adopted. Then and only
Jim,
Excellent point. We thought a context label was crucial in order to achieve
scalability (2**40) bits. A single 20 bit globally unique SFI identifier
didn’t seem to be practical to us.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James N Guichard
Sen
Robert,
Comments inline.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:13 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: James N Guichard ; Francois Clad (fclad)
; adr...@olddog.co.uk; mpls ; SPRING WG List
; s...@ietf.org
Robert,
The point is to re-purpose existing MPLS hardware in the short-term to build
service function forwarders.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:52 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: James N
Wim,
Comment inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) [mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:38 AM
To: Robert Raszuk ; John E Drake
Cc: mpls ; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org;
James N Guichard ; adr...@olddog.co.uk; Francois
Hi,
I think there is a fundamental difference between the subject draft and
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-01. Despite your co-author Wim’s
assertions to the contrary [1], the latter draft is describing how to use
segment routing rather than NSH for service function path traversal.
T
Daniel,
It has a multiplicity of issues, primarily wrt scalability and ease of
configuration.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernier, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:54 AM
To: John E Drake ; Robert Raszuk
Cc: mpls ; SPRING WG
Robert,
Comments inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: rras...@gmail.com [mailto:rras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:00 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca ; mpls
; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org; James N
Guichard ; adr
Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:38 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: EXT - daniel.bern...@bell.ca ; mpls
; SPRING WG List ; s...@ietf.org; James N
Guichard ; adr...@olddog.co.uk; Francois Clad
(fclad)
Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
in
Stewart,
Realistically, I think your proposal is an example of closing the barn door
after the horse has bolted.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: spring On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 10:28 AM
To: Stewart Bryant ; Andrew G. Malis
; Loa Andersson
Cc: m...@ietf.org; sprin
I'm not aware of any IPR.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: mpls On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 6:15 AM
> To: m...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; draft-xu-mpls-sr-over...@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] draft-xu-mpls-sr
Hi,
I think Sasha has a valid point. Further, ingress replication has been part of
MVPN since forever.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: spring@ietf.org;
dra
s, at best, a stretch..
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:55 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org;
(spring-cha...@tools.iet
e to pure
unicast networks.
Thx,
Robert.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:20 PM John E Drake
mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Robert,
I’m sorry for the confusion. My only point was that MVPN provides the
reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of tunnel
types
reg Mirsky
Sent: 17 November 2019 11:39
To: John E Drake
mailto:40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Alexander Vainshtein
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org<mailto:draf
: Greg Mirsky
Sent: 17 November 2019 13:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: John E Drake ; spring@ietf.org;
Alexander Vainshtein ;
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk
;
(spring-cha...@tools.ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
draft
40 matches
Mail list logo
