Hi Peng,
The choice to advertise REPLACE or REPLACEB6 is not based on the sid-list on
which it is resolving.
We will update the draft with details and examples for all the SIDs to clarify.
You can review the updated draft and we can discuss if you have further
questions.
Rgds
Shraddha
Junipe
WG,
I don't support the adoption of this document as a WG document.
I am in agreement with stephane's comments on the list.
1. May cause congestion somewhere else in the network
There is already WG adopted document that is addressing the problem space
draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr
Huzhibo,
Pls see inline for replies..
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Huzhibo
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG
Subject: RE: WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
[External Email. Be cautious of
Huaimo,
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 2:39 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG
Subject: Re: WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Shraddha
Huzhibo,
Pls see inline..
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Huzhibo
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG
Subject: RE: WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
[External Email. Be cautious of content
Bruno,
Snipped...
1. draft-ietf-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
"If the Node-SID or Prefix-SID becomes
unreachable, the event and resulting forwarding changes should not
communicated to the forwarding planes on all configured routers
(including PLRs for the failed node) until
1. draft-ietf-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
"If the Node-SID or Prefix-SID becomes
unreachable, the event and resulting forwarding changes should not
communicated to the forwarding planes on all configured routers
(including PLRs for the failed node) until the hold-timer
WG,
Folks may remember that the draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr and
draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement have been presented in Spring wg
session in IETF 110. Given the documents have many things in common,
the Spring wg chairs advised the authors of both documents to collaborate
and
WG,
Pls find the link for new draft draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/
This is a merged version of the below two problem statement documents
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seam
We will refresh it soon.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 10:09 PM
To: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org
Cc: Nitsan Dolev ; Michael Gorokhovsky
; spring@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protec
Bruno,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see inline..
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 7:42 PM
To: SPRING WG ; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths
[External Email. Be cautious of content
Authors,
I have below comment on the draft.
1.
An Anycast SID or BGP PeerSID MUST NOT appear in segment
list preceding a Replication SID.
The replication SIDs are similar to Binding-SIDs and Binding-SIds do not have
any
such limitation. If there is an anycast SID before Replication SID,
The
Rishabh,
Pls see inline..
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Rishabh Parekh
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 10:50 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) ; James
Guichard ; SPRING WG ;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
of the IETF.
Title : PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in
Inter-domain SR Networks
Authors : Shraddha Hegde
Kapil Arora
Mukul Srivastava
Samson Ninan
Hi Bruno,
Pls see inline [SH2]
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 10:34 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Shraddha,
Thanks for
Hi Huaimo,
Pls see inline [SH2]
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 4:32 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Shraddha
1, 2022 10:34 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Shraddha,
Thanks for the reply and the discussion.
Please see inline [Bruno2]
Orange Restricted
From: Shraddha Hegde mailto:shrad
Pls find slides attached.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 7:56 AM
To: SPRING WG List
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] SPRING Session Agenda for 117
[External Email. Be cautious of conten
Greg,
Thans again for the careful review and comments.
Pls see inline for replies.
Version -14 will address your comments.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: James Guichard
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:59 PM
To: Greg Mirsky ; mpls ; MPLS Working
Group ; draft-ietf-mpls-spring-int
alformity of the Segment TLV.
updated as below
" If the echo request message contains
a malformed segment sub-TLV, such as incorrect length field,
an echo reply with return code set to..."
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent
I am aware of one IPR that is yet to be declared.
Juniper Legal will send declaration soon.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:48 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com;
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interwork...@ietf.org
Cc: SPRING WG ;
g separate SRGBs for
protocols" if they want to and support
It in the YANG data model.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Pushpasis Sarkar
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Uma Chunduri ;
Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) ;
spring@ietf.org; Shradd
Les,
Pls see inline…
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:59 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Uma Chunduri ;
Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) ;
spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde ; Pushpasis Sarkar
; Hannes Gredler
well
justified.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Pushpasis Sarkar
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:55 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Uma Chunduri ;
Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) ;
spring@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde ; Hannes Gredler
Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configur
Hi Les,
The newer approach describes the conflict resolution for the SRMS entries.
How is the conflict resolved across individual prefix advertisements and SRMS
advertisements?
It is useful to assign a default preference (best possible preference)to
individual prefix-sid advertisements while re
I am not aware of any IPR, other than the one declared by Juniper.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 5:55 PM
To: spring@ietf.org; draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org
Subject: IPR call for draft-hegde-s
Hi Greg,
There is an individual document in SPRING WG that describes BFD for SR-MPLS LSP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/?include_text=1
The draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths is focused on local
repair triggered on the
PLR . Headend triggered pat
All,
This is a very interesting discussion and thanks to Joel for starting this
discussion. IMO, when there are strict requirements of avoiding certain
nodes/links it can be realized either by defining a flex-algo avoiding those
Nodes and links or by using a stack of unprotected adj-sids that a
Hi Pushpasis,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls check if the below text looks good.
"
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments proposes a mechanism to allow the use
of anycast SIDs in a network
where all devices do not share a common SRGB.
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments utilizes
Hi Gyan,
Thank you for the support.
Pls see inline or replies
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com;
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject
Hi ketan,
Thanks for the review and suggestion.
I'll add a section on B-SID and EPE SID in the next revision.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:55 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-no
Hi Huzhibo,
Thanks for review and comments.
The size of the context table and resulting forwarding state is very much
implementation dependent.
There could be ways to optimize that. This draft is an informational draft and
the goal is to describe mechnisms that use context tables
Or an optimiz
Sure. I'll submit the name changed and will close few other comments including
the ones you mentioned received during adoption call in the -01 version.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:47 PM
To: spring@ietf.org; draft
Dhruv,
Thanks for the detailed review and comments.
Pls see inline for replies.
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 7:38 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org; draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see inline for replies.
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:47 PM
To: draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] WG adoption c
the
IETF.
Title : Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths
Authors : Shraddha Hegde
Chris Bowers
Stephane Litkowski
Xiaohu Xu
Feng Xu
Filename:
Hi All,
Based on inputs received during last WG meeting, we have split the Seamless SR
draft
into two documents
1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/
This document focuses on Requirements and Use cases
2.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-seam
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR to this document.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Luay Jalil
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:14 AM
To: James Guichard
Cc: SPRING WG ; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-r
ari Sangli ;
b...@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
(draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Rajesh,
Also you can change the service SID for a subset of prefixes using a policy, to
apply a flex-algo for example, but
?
>From your vague answer it appears that authors don't intend to support any
>form of tunnelling for SRv6
because it is not optimal. Is that the right read?
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:17 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: Aissaou
rt locator based END SID
of the egress PE and the SRH SHOULD contain the service SID. Service SID
resolvability SHOULD NOT be checked on the ingress for this case."
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:04 PM
To: Shraddha Hegd
locator in this case.This is an important
aspect that needs to be addressed in the draft.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: UTTARO, JAMES
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:59 PM
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ;
Srihari Sangli ; Shraddha Hegde ;
Robert Raszuk
Cc: spring
not possible to cover this level of detail, then I am ok to update the
draft saying fallback is out of scope
For this document.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 1:44 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: spring@ietf.org; b...@i
WG,
Regarding Peter's comment on the mic that TI-LFA can divert from post
convergence path when SRLG
is used for computation I would like to clarify that an operator is expected to
do
planning for the post convergence path accounting for the SRLG failures.
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-
care of this difference and ensure sufficient capacity is
planned when there is single failure or multiple failures due to SRLG failure.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:57 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; spring
I strongly object to the adoption of the draft.
There are 3 different flavors defined in the draft
and all three flavors have significant difference in
the forwarding plane behaviours.
I would prefer the discussion on whether WG wants to work on
all these flavors or only one of them to
precede t
ion window opens. Apologies for the
inconvenience.
Rgds
Shraddha
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:57 PM
To: arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com ;
Shraddha Hegde ; Arkadiy Gulko
Subject: New Version Notifi
evidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:42 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar
Cc: Shraddha Hegde ; spring@ietf.org;
arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com
Subject: Re: [spring] New Version Notification for
draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
Hi Pushpasis,
I agree. The pr
Bruno/Martin,
Authors would like to request a time-slot to present new draft
draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00 in the SPRING WG.
Draft: draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00
Time:10 mins
Presenter:Shraddha Hegde
Rgds
Shraddha
___
spri
Hi Authors,
When there are multiple anycast IP addresses assigned to different nodes and
one or more nodes
do not advertise a Prefix SID for that anycast address but other nodes
advertise a prefix-sid, there is a possibility
of different implementations behaving differently with respect to prog
good enough detail, that should be explained in the draft instead of
leaving it to the
Imagination of implementers.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:47 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ;
draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
ssues caused by config errors and IMO conflict resolution draft is
the right place
to describe these cases and the solutions so that all vendors have consistent
behaviours.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 12:05 AM
To: Shraddha
ow the PHP procedures as
described in,
[SR-ISIS] and [SR-OSPF] for an SRMS advertisement."
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 12:53 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ;
draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Su
SPRING WG,
Conflict resolution is an important problem to solve and it is important to
Standardize this draft.
I generally support the draft but have a few major comments which I hope the
authors will work on.
1.Conflict resolution and forwarding
Section 3.4 has the statement
will be consistent on ISIS topology and
OSPF topology
and is the best suited model for ships in the night transitions.
Pls see inline for other responses.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:57 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; spring
e for details...
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:48 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
Shraddha -
Protocol preference (commonly known as
Chairs,
I would like to request a 10 min slot to present the below draft.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths-01
Thanks
Shraddha
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/s
]
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 8:53 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Adrian Farrel
Subject: Re: [spring] Slot request for IETF 100
Shraddha,
Could this traffic accounting format be represented as a YANG module? If so,
can it be part of an existing SR YANG module or would you define a new
: Friday, November 3, 2017 11:26 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Slot request for IETF 100
Hello Shraddha,
what's the difference between the SR-Path-Identifier specified in your draft
and the Binding Segment defined in the Segment Routing Architecture
Robert,
If we have to get the N:1 mapping then we need to count all the N flows on a
transit router.
N is really huge number and it is really not practical to count every flow on a
transit router.
There have also been comments about creating state in the network.
The proposed solution in the dr
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:45 PM
To: Rob Shakir
Cc: SPRING WG List ;
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-pol...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-rou
Chairs,
This is an important piece of work for SR-TE. Support WG adoption.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: spring On Behalf Of Luay Jalil
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 1:16 AM
To: Rob Shakir
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-polic
Not aware of any IPR related to the draft.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: spring On Behalf Of Voyer, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:12 PM
To: Rob Shakir ; SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy
Support
Not aware of any I
Chairs,
We have posted a New version of draft
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths.
This draft has been presented multiple times and we have addressed the comments
received.
Authors of the draft would like to ask for working group adoption.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-h
Path segment has multiple useful use cases.
I support the WG adoption of this draft.
Few comments
1. The fact that service labels appear below path-segment should be clearly
mentioned.
At the egress, multiple labels may have to be looked-up and popped for UHP
cases. This may need
special hardwar
:14 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; Xiaohu Xu
; Srihari Sangli ; Srihari
Sangli
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-01.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF
Hi All,
We have posted -05 version of draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths/
New sections have been added for addressing convergence and optimizations.
4. Hold timers for Node-SID/Prefix-SIDs and Ad
Hi Chairs,
I would like to request slot to present below drafts.
1.Draft: draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam-01
Speaker:Shraddha Hegde/Mukul Srivastava
Duration: 10 mins
2. Draft: updates to draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-01
Speaker:Shraddha Hegde
Duration:5 mins
3. Draft:updates to d
Dear Authors
I have the below comments on the draft.
1. Section 1.Introduction
"This provides a major improvment compared to LFA
([RFC5286]) and remote LFA ([RFC7490]) which cannot be applicable in
some topologies ([RFC6571])."
Change to
This provides a major improvement compare
Hi Greg,
Thanks for comments.
I do see similarities in the protocol extensions although the usecases are
different.
IMO, it would be good to keep the usecase documents separate but work together
to
Define protocol extension that can be used by both.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Tuesd
SPRING WG,
SRv6+ is definitely a better proposal in terms
1.Adherence to IPv6 Architecture
2.Efficient encoding
3.Operational simplicity
There hasn't been a single mail denying the above advantages of SRv6+
The only argument has been the SRv6 in its present form has been
deploye
Andy,
RFC 6119 defines ipv6 router-id .
It is not mandatory to advertise IPv4 router-id in ISIS.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: spring On Behalf Of Andy Smith (andsmit)
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:07 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; Gyan Mishra
; Robert Raszuk ; Rob Shakir
;
I support the adoption of both drafts.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Idr On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 11:43 PM
To: 'idr wg' ; 'SPRING WG List'
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt
and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week ex
Hi Bruno/Rob,
I would like to present updates to below draft
1. draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-02
Presenter:shraddha
Time: 5 mins.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: spring On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 5:58 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Cc: spring-cha...@
some time.
Request you to consider for adoption.
Rgds
Shraddha
_
From: Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 12:36 PM
To: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org
Subject: Request for WG adoption
WG,
This is the draft I pointed out that talks about solutions for providing
node-protection.
It covers Anycast case as well as keeping forwarding plane longer.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-05
Review and comments solicited.
Rgds
Shraddha
__
larify.
Thanks again for pointing it out.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: rt...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Draft for Node protection of intermediate nodes in SR Paths
Hi Shraddha,
I have one question to the documen
together and assigned one anycast SID for each
pair.
Hope that clarifies.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Huzhibo
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:20 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; rt...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Reply: Draft for Node protection of intermediate nodes in SR Paths
Hi Shraddha:
Yo
which
failure really happened and have the ability in hardware to use appropriate
backup path. None of these
is in the scope of this document.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 8:15 PM
To: Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
Cc: spring@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org
s Protection Framework draft.
I'll add text in the next revision for this.
Rgds
Shraddha
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 12:24 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: spring@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk
Subject: Re: [spring] Draft for N
e. It is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
(SPRING) WG of the IETF.
Title: Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths
Authors: Shraddha Hegde
Chris Bowers
Stephane Litkowski
Xiaohu Xu
Feng Xu
Name:draft-ietf-spring-se
81 matches
Mail list logo
