[mpls] Query related to SR Architecture

Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com> Tue, 15 September 2015 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <osmankh@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9804F1B3F8B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 6Ue0K0NDbCVr for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm1-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm1-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD7A1B3965 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1442303094; bh=RaZD8dVSBoberpWh6hA2Gclwz6TzgbstAbmOIazdcO0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:From:Subject; b=WzW9MmcVUhBxRMzXnNBov05wEx+/U1s1Yv00x4tXI6v/ZZxKrMpJwANR4fIc2SarvzQ3kZcyu/RNG+zFpCeCJ86FipHh0Y9+mFAbQipvNfRgn7AptRk+A+3y8OAXlKnt9zyWJRfjL0VckjPphpcFFfio5S/RfSZj4vKYSciCdwNqFvzA0XeoId1+IDbH+CUq0lYFoyblRLWLGwN0/Rs2/mF3HET+a71+fTKKEANlo4cO0Y8xiosPdFBPMoDYgcTVkpJwJ5GOzwc9+ICQ5AEQYADoO2aMtghKPLJKn7hUiubdP35wUFXhF9MMmWLWRMIiGGRJdJWz0En3OZIyOhCoXw==
Received: from [98.138.100.115] by nm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2015 07:44:54 -0000
Received: from [98.138.88.232] by tm106.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2015 07:44:54 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1032.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2015 07:44:54 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 178713.26435.bm@omp1032.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: twYAGl4VM1nuhTUolMw149ehCtyM1jBpqHkpu7qOQ7gVbuQGCqUVe_bWcpNE79p Q7Kdxg7DXQKg1NSO.Qu7zoyqQ._yOCKVCI0xtu8snUpUSNMg43od08z_aiuoiWm6I3lBvrAB1.Zb sMhC.YtDkT2L6U5PTpL_HrqmIzVDdmi.t2jKRw2WELFvzbvfopPDPjdCh7JwAgva5NOFGhHifEp5 z0sj4AkJ46T.vgDpZsNwGHe3h3RLtd0pcg.wDrNIv8CLYo.h7RvHDY4pvRW0.grPxTEeVlIRHA4E u2gzhJB3hvPLs2XdmyEf2iJL1jgd9tSQi8vgzUzozMnxPz4J601To.J._djn8AGxB6C6eps07dPi z_v7aAjMy1IrEaxXOiq9BOi4hCJpC_IP_gBfFI0QUdRjKoViWKPQI2NexoqPnFe9SBkm0fAfWjNY YmMhFnW.j6b1QIhlzFxqPOCN0VOXw5mFkFE91CWJ6q0lM.jKgSgcdKombhX76WiagI2jlmI.NqXV hiijAxg--
Received: by 98.138.105.213; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:44:53 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:44:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <197940302.24606.1442303093417.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_24605_431245799.1442303093414"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_0sGZIv_k0W-BUI0QR24TZB9OyE>
Subject: [mpls] Query related to SR Architecture
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:44:55 -0000

Hi,

I have a basic question around SPRING/SR.

How can an IP/MPLS carrier in the market today deploy SPRING in their core network without SR being able to support efficient multicast routing in the network?
Are we not restricting carriers by proposing the SPRING/SR architecture when we know it does not efficiently support routing of multicast traffic?

I would like get some feedback on this point


thanks,
Usman