Hi Greg,
“My proposal to use HbH EH included the use of the management plane to
explicitly enable AltMarking only on segment end-points and keep it disabled on
transit nodes.”
What’s the benefit of using HbH in this mode?
HbH EH has deployment issue in most of the existing network. I am happy t
Assumption 2 is not correct. We assume there are nodes support srh but not hbh
and doh.
Best,
Tianran
Sent from WeLink
发件人： Joel M. Halpernmailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>
收件人： Giuseppe
Fioccolamailto:giuseppe.fiocc...@huawei.com>>
抄送：
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m
ards,
Greg
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:39 AM Tianran Zhou
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Assumption 2 is not correct. We assume there are nodes support srh but not hbh
and doh.
Best,
Tianran
Sent from WeLink
发件人： Joel M. Halpernmailto:j...@joelhalpern.co
Hi Tom,
All you arguments are correct.
If a network is built all by supportive devices (support HbH, DoH), there is no
doubt that 6man-alt-mk is a sound solution.
However, existing network may consist many non-supportive devices. These
devices may
1. support SRH, but not HbH and DoH. This is t
ill
support this new TLV. It is not obvious that they will support any SRH TLVs.
And if they do, they clearly will not support a not yet defined TLV.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/9/2021 9:04 PM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> All you arguments are correct.
> If a network is built all by su
Hi Tom,
Please see my reply below.
Best,
Tianran
-邮件原件-
发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
发送时间: 2021年11月11日 2:32
收件人: Tianran Zhou
抄送: Joel M. Halpern ;
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring
my
perspective is how to deploy it.
We are always on the way to performance optimization. I've read your draft, and
your solution is very interesting.
Best,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 1:05 AM
To: Tianran
Hi Ron,
Please see my reply in line.
Thanks,
Tianran
-邮件原件-
发件人: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2021年11月16日 6:20
收件人: Tianran Zhou ; Tom Herbert
抄送: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
主题: RE: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring
-Original Message-
From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 1:00 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ; Tom Herbert
Cc: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark
Tianran
: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:48 AM
To: Tianran Zhou
Cc: Ron Bonica ; Tom Herbert ;
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark
Hi Tianran,
as I imagine it, the deployment of SRH in a production network
om Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
发送时间: 2021年11月17日 23:01
收件人: Tianran Zhou
抄送: Greg Mirsky ; Ron Bonica ;
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [spring] A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:38 PM Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
>
Hi Haoyu,
The application is really interesting and useful.
I am not sure if it is necessary to create a new OAM protocol at transport
layer.
IMHO, a per hop/per segment extension based on STAMP could be more practical.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions-03.txt
Hi Haoyu,
I agree with Greg. I think IOAM with existing OAM protocol can address your
case.
Again, I can show you some more details on your motivation.
(1) it’s session-less and we don’t need assign any roles (e.g., reflector);
ZTR> I am not sure if I understand what the “session-less” mean.
But
LV?
What's your use case, and your requirement? Let's evaluate it with numbers.
Best,
Tianran
From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 2:50 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ; Greg Mirsky
Cc: spring@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG
Subject: RE: [ippm] [spring] Active OAM
Hi Haoyu and Greg,
I think we are getting clear, the discussion falls into two points:
1. new protocol vs reuse existing protocol
2. IPv6 EH vs UDP
Best,
Tianran
From: ippm [mailto:ippm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoyu Song
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 4:10 AM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: spring
Hi Benoit,
Thanks for bringing this up.
I have been monitoring the discussions on this draft in SPRING and OPSAWG.
As I suggested, please copy your discussions to OPSAWG also, so that we know
the progress.
Basically, this draft is simple and straight forward. It's quite similar to
rfc9160 also
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com [mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 4:32 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ;
benoit.claise=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Hi Gyan,
Thanks very much for raising this discussion in the mailing list.
As discussed in the document, there are pros and cons both for PBT-M and
PBT-I(IOAM-DEX).
I really think this is useful, especially when the network is MTU sensitive or
not powerful, like DetNet.
I think the WG should pro
[mailto:rgandhi.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 1:52 AM
To: Tianran Zhou
Cc: Gyan Mishra ; IETF IPPM WG ; SPRING
WG
Subject: Re: [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft
Hi all,
Yes, this is a useful document for telemetry use-cases where no metadata is
Hi All,
I support the adoption as coauthor.
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document.
Cheers,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:44 AM
To: SPRING WG List
Cc: 6man
Su
Hi Greg,
I did not follow the discussion on the ethertype case. But I think it’s
different from this case alt-mk on srv6.
If I were there on ethertype discussion, I would consider ethertype will
explode with more and more similar applications. And ethertype is not in iana
registry, but in ieee.
ance improvement, but I don't see it as a significant
enough benefit in processing to justify a solution to the scenario that is
already addressed.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 8:51 PM Tianran Zhou
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I did not follow the discussion on
I think issue2, and also issue 1,3,4,5 have already been resolved.
We can close them all.
Best,
Tianran
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:31 AM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] Confirming resolution of issue #2 of
draf
This is a good point. In this way, the probe is generically used to collect
node data.
At each node, the probe will be send to the slow path to get the node data.
Data could be carried in the payload which has more space.
Then, what’s the difference to existing way that Robert mentioned? Use
str
opinion
can only be collected in control plane.
Best,
Tianran
From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ; Robert Raszuk
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] Monitoring metric to detect and
Welcome Jim and Joel!
Cheers,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 4:33 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; int-...@ietf.org; ; Rob
Shakir
Subject: RE: [spring] Leadership chang
Hi Thomas,
I think questions from both Ketan and Gyan on the IE usage are very important.
The value should be described clearly in the draft. So that people now how to
implement and use them.
Here your replay to Ketan on the mplsTopLabelType is clear to me. You want to
account the traffic with
Hi Rakesh and Greg,
I may not very clear about the context. Please allow me to jump in.
It seems both of you make some valid point.
Please see in line with .
Cheers,
Tianran
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi
(rgandhi)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:4
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:15 PM
To: Mach Chen ; Tianran Zhou ;
Greg Mirsky
Cc: spring ; IPPM Chairs ;
spring-cha...@ietf.org; Tommy Pauly ; IETF IPPM WG
(i...@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and
draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm
Thank you Mac
"Thus, from a purely technical point of view, I see no reason for this document
to be adopted.”
Could you please explain the technical point why this document can’t be adopted?
IMO, all your statements just show support and consensus on the technology.
Tianran
___
Hi Yaakov,
This is an interesting topic.
After a quick review, there are several questions as follows:
1. It's clear to me to have a deadline for each packet. So that router can
schedule the packet based on the urgency. But what's the motivation to split
the end to end deadline to several local
Hi Yaakov,
Thanks for your clarification.
Again I think this is an interesting work.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Tianran
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaako...@rad.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Tianran Zhou
Cc: det...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: new
s safe.
Hi Yaakov,
Thanks for your clarification.
Again I think this is an interesting work.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Tianran
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaako...@rad.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Tianran Zhou mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
Cc: det...@ietf.org<mailto:det
Hi Yuanxiang,
Please see in-line.
Cheers,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: Qiuyuanxiang [mailto:qiuyuanxi...@h3c.com]
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 4:17 PM
To: Wangyali(Yali,Data Communication Standards and Patents Dept)
; spring@ietf.org
Cc: Haoyu Song ; Tianran Zhou
Subject: 答复
Hi Haoyu,
Thanks for sharing your proposal.
I definitely have interest about this work.
We have a similar proposal which extends the STAMP.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions/
It would be great if we can put the use cases, requirements, potential
solutions in a
On the generic use case, I see RFC 8403 in this working group, which is based
on MPLS data plane.
Best,
Tianran
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoyu Song
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 3:40 AM
To: spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Request for ado
depth.
It’s highly dynamic, I do not understand why an active probe need to collect
this data. Then how to use it?
Best,
Tianran
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoyu Song
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 1:21 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ; spring-cha...@ietf.org;
spring@ietf.org
Hi Chairs and WG,
I strongly support the adoption of this draft.
As far as I know, there are already multiple vendors(10+) support CSID and
passed the interoperation test.
I followed the DT for a while. CSID as a SRv6 native solution, shows great
advantages than CRH.
This draft is mature enough
Hi There,
I've read these two documents and support the wg adoption on both.
I think the idea is straight forward and useful. The text is easy to understand.
Here are some editorial nits are:
1. in abstract: unidirctional -> unidirectional
2. in introduction: carriying -> carrying
3. in section 3:
39 matches
Mail list logo
