IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Fri, 28 March 2014 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFB91A0958 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 sxN7GfILwwl9 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD741A06C3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail17-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.236) by CH1EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.43.70.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:20 +0000
Received: from mail17-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail17-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775634006D6; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.11; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -2
X-BigFish: VPS-2(zzec9I1432Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzzz31h2a8h839h944hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh224fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h2216h22d0h2336h2438h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch25f6h2605h262fh268bh1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail17-ch1: transitioning domain of juniper.net does not designate 66.129.239.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.239.11; envelope-from=yakov@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
Received: from mail17-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail17-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1396029858226298_13050; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.225]) by mail17-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E2B3800F7; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.11) by CH1EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (10.43.70.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:08 +0000
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:55 -0700
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id s2SI3tV88229; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201403281803.s2SI3tV88229@magenta.juniper.net>
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201A8B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201A8B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-MH-In-Reply-To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> message dated "Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:26:04 -0000."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <55966.1396029833.1@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:54 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2nq0ypxkFROr8-lytDdhLctVOlE
Cc: "Alvaro Retana, (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:30 -0000

Robin,

> Alvaro,
> 
> Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows:
> 
> "  The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers
>    the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE
>    to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF).
>    LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required."
> 
> In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services
> including unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC
> 5036, but RFC 5036 a nd mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209,
> but RFC 3209 and P2MP TE. If SR path does not cover multicast, "LDP
> and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required" is just to mislead.

Agreed.

Yakov.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email