Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement - Section 3

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 24 March 2014 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
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 1AA3D1A02D6 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Ut8NNdC3e0vF for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C661A02D4 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h18so9007387igc.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GZPTrNS5CrNyCVFEEPHqB0H6eV32M19HEKSAo+3Cfss=; b=wjA1k8G0RmoeZmcGufO6dd1/MrCWoWkod7cJyUrW88jHGtX4geNIKEOxte+IQcf3S7 iZPe3FytdZLEEcw8yrUy+bbWN/d3aD+Br60a8qNwLoKeRN17OVb5wV3IMm/fTDmKu95t cBdKksSA5/gWJgUVrtPg8VOKGWGKp9uKDAPUJJD7aWMnaTV8U3cyXRUIcRo6HYbxBPSI 6WhC4J15ygDL5jR//80nckOPmo+iTNeaujin3Zmm5FM/POh7LA/Y/7Qar6H0iEH5NVtA mhKk24DPqAcjcBhX7nQzzjlimts+ayCByppQKX23SjJY/C3A4iHWWqDirYs5lzJwUeHq 0GiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.33.65 with SMTP id h1mr2967341icd.72.1395689836905; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201403241742.s2OHgfV16351@magenta.juniper.net>
References: <201403241742.s2OHgfV16351@magenta.juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:37:16 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7A9N7_Mxb796s5uxqiyuSiiZXfQ
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnFKr-CBjdn_DESut=EAjQR4H4g1aNWFer26z93S41m9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SJOYFoEstkrKy08otnnaD0q0cg0
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement - Section 3
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:37:20 -0000

Hi Yakov,

> After all, these IGP-based tunnels are *not* source/explicitly routed.

The definition of "source routing" states that source routing is the
ability which allows a sender of a packet to partially or completely
specify the route the packet takes through the network

Let's notice that it says nothing about the src of such information.
Such source of this information can be coming from various sources or
routing protocols including IGPs.

Charter says:

" Full explicit control (through loose or strict path specification)
can be achieved in a network  comprising only SPRING nodes, however
SPRING must inter-operate through loose routing in existing networks
and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for for other
network applications."

The above quite directly allows SPRING WG to work on "loose paths" and
"loose routing" therefor IGPs can be used just fine to propagate such
explicit control information.

Thx,
R.



On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
>> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
>>
>> Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft
>> by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
>>
>> Some additional background:  We had issued a call for adoption for
>> draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.
>> From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the
>> list, there was consensus to adopt.  The authors published
>> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the
>> original draft without the solution being present in the use case
>> description.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents IGP-based
> MPLS tunnels as a use case for SPRING. Since SPRING is about
> source/explicitly routed tunnels, then the use case of IGP-based
> tunnels is outside the scope of SPRING.  After all, these IGP-based
> tunnels are *not* source/explicitly routed.
>
> Yakov.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring