Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 04 March 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07D73A0F77 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:00:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 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, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 dtihREyzdMsZ for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6405E3A0F75 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id p125so2132539oif.10 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 06:00:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rok6P/d/5JLI8vx2NDMCXZmrbB4hhpqy/i04uMFFNxk=; b=SbM3QP3CqE/Y7GE6jY7r36qMf+gvci4UhNdbSygqjYcvr12miC28qZVwPpipQbDqNx 3qcQwOJANy7H07ojazt5BkskFLPFDDcj6YTW/A7W8IV5jCQGsz76cnFihps7XGzAw2ls D9HdLdJ1Zavv+GcfOnyt8FvVqPo2t0ZTQFs8CB0Ft5hfCpHWR93hnmxYy6II7CUhfr5K K4tpV8GdMrsbmYuPs2w67AhJ1sK0xNIbfnRVoVaiWDTlqDwP4kBKA3xBWjwnZY+FEbAu HtaIodQdWh15niy9e0Pbz8ISbMmOeDPsSk8cFMg4g1UecDNqt8wuper4f6oMyKRld3S5 N9pQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rok6P/d/5JLI8vx2NDMCXZmrbB4hhpqy/i04uMFFNxk=; b=ednkxYNWrvPZjX71UfgzgTmERTRl4N0Z/CgRMxKt3DPKenEJWqx8egQrBWFtKftxKe F0QSfjc3rNPua8FWIeIoMFIErjFa+cup+VpJfmyH6F6HPgQnhaJANqAMB/JlXhasxoaX GumUkI+QRra2ygTbhVyofw/ymNzpBTaz5b9PdkwyFtiu4/SgXvcR62q/dMCRSLQi67aU 4vF+FIZsFBgDKoHWCyuAFBLRZbKgV/IDmWEwK5wmqgOiOLBViSbmN8UBFPxdBpWVC/Yx NomkVRo2XE/ULgjUpmjNwvBALe1yvcESOwRzqSByTphIjaA0r8ACaE4byrjMQeP3CiIQ ubWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2H3K+UIFlZD9yW0iKKjjgT8Z5kh5cqdNWYNbH4Bod9I93EGG1w eWaUqCWJJP20iW8HQgsCET8GLVw0MMKVcDbh/gjUvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vsxfwrTsir9aydl7Ornfto+KQyOcVZiIRm+rJrs?= =?utf-8?q?bkQJDCJLXJuVQiNucRd2q3PWoQ61n8nhzB+b2BmG4xh0XBw=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4106:: with SMTP id o6mr1797016oia.173.1583330449859; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 06:00:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com> =?utf-8?q?=3C8259d37e-b460-5f76-1ce6-b0d026bccf6b=40gont=2Ecom=2Ear=3E_=3C2?= =?utf-8?q?0143=5F1583250558=5F5E5E7C7E=5F20143=5F390=5F3=5F53C29892C8575842?= =?utf-8?q?99CBF5D05346208A48DD80E6=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einf?= =?utf-8?q?ra=2Eftgroup=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C5d693a5e-baa0-6ffb-4e39-2695795b7413=40joelhalpern=2Ecom=3E_?= =?utf-8?q?=3C7501=5F1583255845=5F5E5E9125=5F7501=5F499=5F1=5F53C29892C85758?= =?utf-8?q?4299CBF5D05346208A48DD84FF=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Ei?= =?utf-8?q?nfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3Cfc5bf8d9-073f-2eff-6041-e1610bf6e116=40joelhalpern=2Ecom=3E_?= =?utf-8?q?=3CDM6PR05MB63484795948C4901C9B7A548AEE40=40DM6PR05MB6348=2Enampr?= =?utf-8?q?d05=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= <CAOj+MMGE+j7_QnFn-8ZQcU3BKLGEPaXj6hfppxG7-7iFkT3R1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU3fXaQY--XufYo+CuCnJsTd+bXH2uBbjUUHVJg6tLpzng@mail.gmail.com> =?utf-8?q?=3C409678ed-7175-006a-b8b3-f236c1640fa3=40joelhalpern=2Ecom=3E_?= =?utf-8?q?=3CAM0PR0302MB3217A8B8000B8936202DAEC49DE50=40AM0PR0302MB3217=2Ee?= =?utf-8?q?urprd03=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E_=3CMW3PR11MB457073BC9EE97A5EDC2?= =?utf-8?q?7A986C1E50=40MW3PR11MB4570=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E_?= =?utf-8?q?=3CAM0PR0302MB321780C8C7A72A6BAD439EB29DE50=40AM0PR0302MB3217=2Ee?= =?utf-8?q?urprd03=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E_=3CMW3PR11MB45707E8A763F6F5B60F?= =?utf-8?q?C4AF6C1E50=40MW3PR11MB4570=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CCAOj+MMGe0mGywCyULJM-Zk2+GQOy=5FHyoqGZQF7O1+Y-bjLT8Lg=40mail?= =?utf-8?q?=2Egmail=2Ecom=3E_=3CMW3PR11MB4570C80AEA0EF16FB30B6FB2C1E50=40MW3?= =?utf-8?q?PR11MB4570=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= <CAOj+MME2tW3UstHgfQap1fqH2miJL7=8mUEVz_Rm6--oTN670g@mail.gmail.com> <5ffe49d84344445bb523923c4067a02c@nokia-sbell.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ffe49d84344445bb523923c4067a02c@nokia-sbell.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:00:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGs+ar5ziP3CxcRQeGaJ_5JCp2mK2sjL=YsKtgJbsR5aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" <weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000006bb9e05a007d976"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/flzNRg5aBgLQno3XEKCRmyugluQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 14:00:55 -0000

Dear WWB,

I think we are talking about the same thing ... behaviour to do or not to
do PSP is embedded into SID. So to have two options you have to have two
SIDs today advertised by IGP.

I am just gently suggesting that to support both you could have algorithmic
option (odd SID - PHP, even SID no PHP) and need to only signal one -
keeping the other one reserved per node but not signalled).

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:56 PM Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <
weibin.wang@nokia-sbell.com> wrote:

> Inline;
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:31 PM
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein <
> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> So essentially you are confirming that subject to topology in worst case I
> need to double the flooding amount of SIDs in my network to support both
> PSP and non PSP operation. I think if we would consider PSP as optional or
> on-demand behaviour we could architect it without the need for double
> flooding node's SIDs just to indicate in one PSP=0 and in the other one PSP
> !=0 (which by itself is still subject to given IGP and SR code even
> allowing you to do that).
>
>
>
> Hi Robert:
>
> In my understanding, one behavior id (16bits) is only correspond to one
> SID, and the 0 is reserved as defined in SRv6 NPG draft, PSP is flavor and
> is never used alone.
>
>
>
> Thx;
>
> WWB;
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <
> ketant@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* 04 March 2020 16:07
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>om>;
> spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> Let's assume following scenario:
>
>
>
>                       ----- T1
>
>                      |
>
> A ----  Z ----  P ---- T2
>
>                     |
>
>                       ----- T3
>
>
>
>
>
> A - is ingress
>
> P - is potential PSP performer
>
> Ts - are egress (from SR pov)
>
>
>
> Q1:
>
>
>
> Assume T1 and T3 signal capability to handle SRH depth = 4 and T2 = 2
>
> Assume P signals PSP = 5 for SID P
>
> SRH depth required is 3
>
>
>
> How does A can build SRH for all three SR paths to do PSP only to node T2
> ?
>
>
>
> sub-Q1:  Is it legal today to signal by P two SIDs one with PSP depth
> supported = N and the other with depth = 0 ?
>
> *[KT] The MSD support is advertised at node level. The node P can
> advertise say two End SID – one with PSP and another without it. The SR
> Source Node picks up which of the two End SIDs to pick based on the
> capabilities of the egress nodes. Ultimately, the SR Source Node A decides
> and instructs P what it needs to do for each of the 3 paths.*
>
>
>
> Q2:
>
>
>
> Assume T1, T2 and T3 signal capability to handle SRH depth = 4
>
> Assume P signals PSP = 5 for SID P
>
> SRH depth required is 3
>
>
>
> How can A build SRH such that PSP will happen only for very fat flows ?
>
> *[KT] As in the previous example, A can make a choice on a per flow basis
> by picking up the PSP or non-PSP flavor of P’s SIDs.*
>
>
>
> Q3:
>
>
>
> Assume T1, T2 and T3 signal capability to handle SRH depth = 2
>
> Assume P signals PSP = 0
>
> SRH depth required is 3
>
>
>
> Would A not be able to insert SRH and do any SR in this case ?
>
> *[KT] Yes, A cannot generate a packet with SRH with 3 segments destined to
> the T nodes in such a case.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Ketan*
>
>
>
> Many thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 11:17 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
>
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> *Sent:* 04 March 2020 15:41
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* spring@ietf...org <spring@ietf.org>rg>; Martin Vigoureux <
> martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>gt;; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>;
> Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Ketan,
>
> Lots of thanks for the pointer.
>
>
>
> Here is the text I have found at this reference:
>
>
> 4.4
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06#section-4.4>.
> Maximum End D MSD Type
>
>
>
>
>
>    The Maximum End D MSD Type specifies the maximum number of SIDs in an
>
>    SRH when performing decapsulation associated with "End.Dx" behaviors
>
>    (e.g., "End.DX6" and "End.DT6") as defined in
>
>    [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06#ref-I-D...ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming>]..
>
>
>
>    SRH Max End D Type: 45 (Suggested value - to be assigned by IANA)
>
>
>
>    If the advertised value is zero or no value is advertised
>
>    then it is assumed that the router cannot apply
>
>    "End.DX6" or "End.DT6" behaviors if the outer IPv6 header contains an SRH.
>
>
>
>
>
> I assume that you have actually referred to the highlighted text in this
> section – is this correct?
>
>
>
> If this is correct then, to the best of my understanding:
>
>    1. The request for PSP (expressed as inability to process the SRH and
>    to perform certain lookup by the originator of an SID) is global and not
>    local between the originator and the penultimate node
>
> *[KT] This is correct.*
>
>    1. It is not clear what the penultimate router that has received such
>    a request but cannot implement it is supposed to do.
>
> *[KT] This is not a request to the penultimate SR Endpoint Node. The
> source SR Node explicitly instructs the penultimate SR Endpoint Node when
> it wants it do PSP operation. A router which does not support PSP operation
> (i.e. does not advertise SIDs with those flavors), then the source SR Node
> will not be able to instruct it to do PSP. Ultimately the SR Source Node
> decides.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Ketan*
>
>
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:49 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
> <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele...com>>; Joel M. Halpern <
> jmh@joelhalpern.com>gt;; Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
> Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
>
>
> There is the signalling from the "tail-end node" in SRv6 as well. Perhaps
> you missed
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Fjd1GocprnmRnQ68mT2Nv46H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06%23section-4.4
> ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf..org <spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On
> Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
>
> Sent: 04 March 2020 15:09
>
> To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; Andrew G. Malis <
> agmalis@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Joel, Andy and all,
>
> FWIW I concur with your positions regarding comparison between PHP in MPLS
> and PSP in SRv6.
>
>
>
> I would also like to stress that, to the best of my understanding,  in
> MPLS PHP is a local behavior between the penultimate and ultimate nodes
> with the ultimate node explicitly requesting it and the penultimate one
> giving the option to agree (i.e.to <http://i..e.to> pop the top label
> when forwarding the packet) or disagree (and to swap the top label to
> Explicit NULL). The head-end node (and the rest of the nodes on the path)
> remain completely ignorant of this behavior. I.e., PHP has been introduced
> - and remains - truly optional.
>
>
>
> I have not seen any specifications that would allow the tail-end node of
> an SRv6 path that wants to benefit from PSP to explicitly request this
> behavior from the penultimate one, nor do I see would the penultimate node
> that cannot support PSP do if requested to perform it.  The suggestions I
> have seen that it would be up to the head-end node (that inserts the SRH)
> to indicate that PSP is requested - on behalf of the tail-end node? -  look
> problematic to me as well.
>
>
>
> My 2c,
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf..org <spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On
> Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:09 AM
>
> To: Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> In this case, it is even less relevant.  The PSP for SRv6 does not remove
> the double-processing.  It merely removes the need to ignore the SRH at the
> ultimate node.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> On 3/3/2020 6:27 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> > MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding
>
> > engines at the time - they couldn't do a final pop followed by an IP
>
> > lookup and forward operation in a single forwarding cycle (it would
>
> > impact forwarding speed by 50% best case). 20 years later, is this
>
> > still an issue at the hardware/firmware level? If so, affected
>
> > implementers should speak up, otherwise there's really no need for PSP.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Andy (who was there at the time)
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net
>
> > <mailto:robert@raszuk.net <robert@raszuk.net>>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >     Hi Ron,
>
> >
>
> >      >   MPLS PHP is a clear case of de-encapsulation.
>
> >
>
> >     Purely looking at technical aspect that is not true at all.
>
> >
>
> >     MPLS PHP does not remove label stack. MPLS PHP is just used to pop
>
> >     last label. After MPLS PHP packets continue with remaining label
>
> >     stack to the egress LSR (example L3VPN PE).
>
> >
>
> >      >  I don't think that you can compare MPLS PHP with SRv6 PSP
>
> >
>
> >     But I agree with that. Both operations have very little in common
>
> >     from packet's standpoint or forwarding apect. Well maybe except
>
> >     "penultimate" word :)
>
> >
>
> >     Kind regards,
>
> >     R.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >     On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 8:30 PM Ron Bonica
>
> >     <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
>
> >     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >         Folks,
>
> >
>
> >         I don't think that you can compare MPLS PHP with SRv6 PSP. MPLS
>
> >         PHP is a clear case of de-encapsulation. We do that all the
>
> >         time. In SRv6 PSP, we are removing something from the middle of
>
> >         a packet. That is quite a different story.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                Ron
>
> >
>
> >     _______________________________________________
>
> >     spring mailing list
>
> >     spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>>
>
> >
>
> > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3HYxrbBRUMaCG5VTr1FEMZ96H2?u=https%3A%2
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/3HYxrbBRUMaCG5VTr1FEMZ96H2?u=https%3A%252>
>
> > F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring
>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> spring mailing list
>
> spring@ietf.org
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3HYxrbBRUMaCG5VTr1FEMZ96H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 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://clicktime.symantec.com/3GkRJLpXrP2pY9W9t8khQDB6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>