Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi John,

> Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever.

Just curious how is this at all relevant for this discussion ?

Do I have to roll out MVPN monster to split my unicast UDP stream to few
receivers at selected network point ?

And last but not least who said this is at all related to "ingress
replication" ??? Ingress to p2mp segment can be at any SR midpoint in the
network. Are you suggesting to run MVPN apparatus with manual tree building
? Whow :)

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:

> 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 <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexander
> Vainshtein
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org;
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.authors@ietf.org; <
> spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org> (spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org) <
> spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
>
>
>
> You seem to imply that a multicast distribution tree that is built, say,
> by an SDN controller and used, say, to act as a PMSI in the mVPN
> application, is not really a multicast.  Personally I disagree, but this is
> a matter of taste and terminology.
>
>
>
> What looks unambiguous to me is that:
>
>    - The WG charter explicitly mentions ingress replication as one of
>    “new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior” that “may require
>    architectural extensions”
>    - The current architecture document does not cover any such segment
>    type (whether because such segments have been considered as related to
>    multicast by the authors, or for some other reason is not all that
>    important. )
>
> Therefore my concern remains unresolved regardless of whether ingress
> replication is or is not formally considered as multicast.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 4:15 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> *Cc:* <spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org> (spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org) <
> spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment.authors@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
> Sasha,
>
>
>
> If I have some content and I send it to you and your neighbour as two
> unicast streams am I suddenly doing multicast ?
>
>
>
> IMHO N number of replicated unicasts is still not a multicast.
>
>
>
> Multicast in my definition requires  multicast groups, receiver joins,
> tree building protocols etc ... and this draft does not suggest any of
> this. IN contrast it just describes how can we have p2mp unicast
> distribution ... call it fan out node.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM Alexander Vainshtein <
> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a question regarding adoption of
> draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document.
>
>
>
> These concerns are based on the following:
>
> 1.       This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals
> with local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in its turn, is
> one of the issues that could be used for delivery of multicast.
>
> 2.       Local ingress replication is mentioned in the SPRING WG Charter
> as one of the “New types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior”. The
> charter further says that “Any of the above <*Sasha: New types of
> segments*> may require architectural extensions”
>
> 3.       The current (and, AFAIK, the only existing) Segment Routing
> Architecture document (RFC 8402
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/34qM9QogJnh1eY5nZPXYAkA6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Frfc8402__;JSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUOvwkLSU$>)
> explicitly states in Section 6 that “Segment Routing is defined for
> unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in
> the scope of this document”.
>
> The combinations of observations above strongly suggests to me that a
> document defining multicast-related extensions of segment routing
> architecture should be very useful (if not mandatory) for progressing the
> Replication Segment draft. From my POV the Replication Segment draft is not
> (and is not intended to be) such a document.
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is an intention to produce such a document in the
> timeframe that could be relevant for discussion of the Replication Segment
> draft.
>
>
>
> Nothing in this message should be interpreted as my objection to (or
> support of) adoption of the Replication Segment draft as a WG document *per
> se*.
>
> Bit I find it difficult to take a position any which way without a clear
> and commonly agreed upon framework for multicast in segment routing.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:06 PM
> To: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment@ietf.org;
> spring-chairs@ietf..org; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
>
>
> The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in
> state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Bruno Decraene)
>
>
>
> The document is available at
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment*2F__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUHVCWfyU$>
>
>
>
> Comment:
>
> IPR call:
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fmailarchive.ietf.org*2Farch*2Fmsg*2Fspring*2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us__;JSUlJSUlJQ!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUfVccUWU$>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> spring mailing list
>
> spring@ietf.org
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUhKjFqCs$>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KSi9HHVnunMDQNLd2U3Sij6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUZIWr6Wk$>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>