Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: A technical concern regarding draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy-00

Robert Raszuk <> Thu, 15 June 2023 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0CDC151082 for <>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V5Y3amn1GDMF for <>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E65C15199A for <>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4f845060481so1015729e87.3 for <>; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; t=1686843236; x=1689435236; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=F1xxbeJ37CkG8VM3ayuniUEaHWYbwfVWDVdZbNwN+1s=; b=TG6s5MMfIgZlWcsRh6NnsDGPcI6rWCvZM7XBbgGHU2vpnFap5beppA5q0gYWTbRg36 oLH58915uuIH/gdwWAsCz7Ya2ifLLJ6GY9z0GVjDHImuXPBtALriKgiJqL+797J3RTNn bv7WPNRH69sCrkpWJxTdpHSqvXFRW5YL0zHfv1fdvua0gfzlFlB8gG7PGawzvFr/SEOL yIxCbZGrU1MS0Yi3e/xldHCXYbAqHGOLxE3/B8RwYlSUdH2iELj4W4E2vvGfkd0kQw0R dvYMkjwcjRXfUArXxbTtpwE1+m+fAsEad77RvZ/SnZ5wqKCFpy1v5LTSqPW+vSAYpUgo VQfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1686843236; x=1689435236; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=F1xxbeJ37CkG8VM3ayuniUEaHWYbwfVWDVdZbNwN+1s=; b=cGNeADF0XLnJuorgeF244fBZsEcYWlJV/ePDhwbTstrZhbfkC3GiN9deSh4PAL9uh1 VmSGjaG5mdx++P8z8gxgyr+HwX9cgQwpHQB8ZrYcjR2ep6E85t+SIqI0gEO0nP7aTvES hsP0eqOaozvHs/TmbXF3V+ROwGJhfBMX9+ZZRBzPOKaXJtDhd9r5oBWpaEo5JvRUBl/d 2KAvFD8TndyI7L4XCgL6lSufWMs7Ao6DLXLGQ1uM2/1DRbE6tBA2tD55ceghOnSoiMit TMki5UN/FQRwt11+NFUP5etahMzwFL9zOyZlN91IC+6OHVaWRxThr+R8g6S5mLqh2per u42g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyJAdOh1940NCDSHDKAv7tuW7E1pXj8GF8YF6gZGEKoCHrDqcwZ New4tNMH66pUmRElA696Xlyh1NKzNpuU7oLMsJvy4Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4hqhuWovOcgDCnLaVbOuFoVuR6VoLY9d25CnU21UnRS1KLqDH3scXGZuCf69GjBgNi6Gg/1CBUfM75GZgh1yU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0d2:0:b0:2b1:afe6:896b with SMTP id g18-20020a2eb0d2000000b002b1afe6896bmr9278493ljl.32.1686843236491; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:33:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <>
Cc: "Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz)" <>, "" <>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>, Stewart Bryant <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e73b1905fe2ccb22"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: A technical concern regarding draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 15:35:29 -0000


> I have probably did not say it explicitly, but the default topology would
> use its own resources – and experience its own problems, strictly
> orthogonal to whatever happens in the dedicated CS topology.
> IMHO and FWIW this could be treated as a possible approach for
> implementing the (in)famous “network slicing”.

Isn't the default topo an underlay for any custom topology ? You seems to
think that default topology can function "in parallel", but this is not how
I understand it.

> As for “circuit switching over connectionless paradigm” – well, TDM
> circuit emulation has been standardized by the IETF years ago, has been
> quite widely deployed, and, AFAIK, is still growing as more operators try
> to scrap their SDH networks.

Yeh happened to be for a number of years on a customer side using such an
"invention" and my resistance to the subject draft is coming from this
(bad) experience.

Sure it is cool for operators ... not so for customers.

I even wrote a draft one time trying to detect the hidden problems by such