IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 05 May 2017 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0697412957C; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGcHv4iikGDD; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD3A129494; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k91so2277201ioi.1; Fri, 05 May 2017 03:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=yEGkMWhVniH89nHOiu7Tkhj1wwabo+LZ5ZvEd+xmQGc=; b=EJv5h3vekD8I6pNuI6CAaEEiDJTeBrSPWgJWaYjr2uqDsENes8MdrNSCIPjB8CMCZl SQzQqwJEMGI/LG2bZAmAEB4YWWDJ/jWeIGtVFFJLPHq/vG8O1K1Wi37BpehkGol9a/YJ msOGxkaaAjlEpGyqlzwi3qFk7VayhiEd9eg3R7ocejgjl+5m8aaWB0WO4iPTzNVQ880J fyi7/LTYkZfkRrbbcqTS8v0PnTvk8Uoveyiyh8Qt35Cej9qT/01eWn7Kt2Gkg4/OoLZg cdx6GT8dRHJcwufHpmJ9d5XD5Vtn0pqUGdxj8vKc1LkWTzppOqSpftqIehP2x7cn3nlt r1MA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yEGkMWhVniH89nHOiu7Tkhj1wwabo+LZ5ZvEd+xmQGc=; b=HUH+de8Mvx03MEL0LdKEtY0w55YBGGwb2DGvDjt79HggovqZ8FA+fEEVsiOTQe7Xmm 1w1h8iYl1iqIkAwSJtnu+2z/FJq7qnB4qzPfGNppMvuXd1lpbkSYy01dlPiWI04bnUHe alsgzXzC42gqFtu9k2bqFnXK3CpDL8Z1oewzrDuJCmiMlrWHS9ENIo6psYuATHQ8OnWy 7IThRyQJMoqynF0dATpZqOboYJu66ixB7FB+6UzqNV2sDtnQ6nACM0Aksnq6fMuajRsy ARbzy8OZe/HfvCRtXb33D7JX97wEh9Vb/hUt2QX6QkhfOfxZ9XJLBztM7+T7lHnwIaD+ tIDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5GY2K6U02xTBlCLfl1rh3Ugirj8/STbqTTuc1SFPKkBEMVWXg8 3Ddw4V+psHvDi5V/dJtvcDL5t1AE7A==
X-Received: by 10.107.189.198 with SMTP id n189mr44287128iof.179.1493979434568; Fri, 05 May 2017 03:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B91C6D2C-897A-404C-80B3-EAA8BDEC4414@cisco.com>
References: <149374426742.21414.16408814015665498739@ietfa.amsl.com> <3E209B45-90CE-4EEB-9D2B-E14EFE28DCE0@cisco.com> <87a1534f-079d-3707-9f5d-9327e831bf7a@gmail.com> <B91C6D2C-897A-404C-80B3-EAA8BDEC4414@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 06:17:13 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MRtjQW9V0HAM4B60QUfH-ukWZU0
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnsEn3JBpb8b7Jwcm32K=-iGA3GOPokWwnaXqSpDW89Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
To: stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0c85e47fd130054ec431f1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/db4i8vaTCUoE0DQas6oEvjYhqgU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 10:17:17 -0000

And to add one observation ..

Stewart makes a point that SR-MPLS can be deployed without mpls control
plane.

Well it sure does not require LDP however IGP or BGP extensions for SR-MPLS
signalling is also an example of mpls control plane ... even if much
simpler than traditional cases it is still required.

Cheers,
R.

On May 5, 2017 12:10 PM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> > On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case:
> Operators that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane,
>
>
> I’d agree with the above. Let’s simplify the document with, at the end,
> what is the simplest and most evident use case.
>
> s.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email