Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

Hi Shraddha,

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
wrote:

> Hi Stephano/Pushpasis,
>
> Anycast segments provide loose separation of routing planes. If there is a
> failure, traffic running over anycast segment is allowed
> To failover to different plane. The requirement, this draft tries to
> address is the strict routing plane separation. Certain application traffic
> Should be restricted to one plane even in case of failure and never cross
> over to the other plane.
>
[Pushpasis] Does this not seem to fit requirements of Policy-Based
Routing/Policy-Based-Backup-Selection?

>
> I'll add a reference to anycast segments and details of how this is
> different from anycast SID in the next revision.
>
[Pushpasis] It will be great if you can add a diagram to illustrate the
difference. Maybe I am missing something here :(

Thanks
-Pushpasis

> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:42 PM
> To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
> Cc: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; spring@ietf.org;
> arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com
> Subject: Re: [spring] New Version Notification for
> draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
>
> Hi Pushpasis,
>
> I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the
> required protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp
> drafts, we already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been
> done.
>
> s.
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> > First I must admit that I have not read the entire draft in details...
> >
> > But from the abstract it seems that for the problem that this draft is
> trying to address, a similar problem is already addressed in the Segment
> Routing Problem Statement and Use-Case document (RFC 7855, section
> 3.3.1.1.1. Disjointness in Dual-Plane Networks). And the same has been
> solved using any cast segments as specified in draft-ietf-spring-mpls-
> anycast-segment.
> >
> > Request you to clarify why we need the solution proposed in this draft
> over the one proposed in draft-ietf-mpls-anycast-segments..
> >
> > Thanks and Best regards,
> > -Pushpasis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > New draft submitted for "separating routing planes using segment
> routing".
> > Looking for inputs and comments.
> >
> > PS: The draft erroneously got submitted as individual and not affiliated
> to any WG but the intention was to submit it to SPRING WG.
> > We will correct it once the submission window opens. Apologies for the
> inconvenience.
> >
> > Rgds
> > Shraddha
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:57 PM
> > To: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com <arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com>;
> Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; Arkadiy Gulko <
> arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com>
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-
> planes-using-sr-00.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> >
> > Name:           draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr
> > Revision:       00
> > Title:          Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing
> > Document date:  2017-03-13
> > Group:          Individual Submission
> > Pages:          7
> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gulkohegde-
> routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr/
> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gulkohegde-routing-
> planes-using-sr-00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    Many network deployments arrange the network topologies in two or
> >    more planes.  The traffic generally uses one of the planes and fails
> >    over to the other plane when there are link or node failure.  Certain
> >    applications require the traffic to be strictly restricted to a
> >    particular plane and should not failover to the other plane.  This
> >    document proposes a solution for the strict planar routing using
> >    Segment Routing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > spring@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > spring@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>