IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 27 March 2014 16:58 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 814551A032C for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 E9oUVwLuaQMo for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7811A00E3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h18so1839513igc.8 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:12 -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=9XXqgFYILoXxaciEkQb9OVajQFvm7KwQ7nVmSrb/VWw=; b=jGMPF7zyqCXR4H6L9mIUH9hE9Agnrjo4tu9QlFvhMDFMQQJSgy3zkfSXTAm1uhHlav R52pI2qTbCZ/ZSqsqqxouLaWB7DMzhw3rnHUU16DhNb+kzxgp08Rm1pXMQltrmA8VVjk GcvWCCX8PsUzv3lVTyzgdk15KnOJvf9GMfqr7P5t4dzP7HoIYMj2asmZLGxZvoWI63rU PjxaSSSdK0mrDf3VG7DDYr/NWGoFI7ENOAgZL64MjCZLRlrxh7enJGoN85hieW9ANBvw /s0f0XccgClAs/DWVknHnTyFVqtHMS+nh/sCdlQHVFvFZUYdnyp68l4uS9/34kcNSjc9 1/oA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.33.65 with SMTP id h1mr2984742icd.72.1395939492549; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201A8B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D08201A8B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:58:12 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: kB5kjo3rfXFV708owiJvHw1-gP8
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkPY7gD7EOePkiRfVX40gAxGXqKQ7EJ3wzNPfD98T60dQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec51827b894d9e804f5997d28"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ga_LSwalgegheLh7OUFWdLmiF9c
Cc: "Alvaro Retana, (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, 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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:58:17 -0000

Hi Robin,

Please notice that mLDP and LDP have nothing in common as far as protocol
itself. So those are two separate protocols.

The name may be confusing ;)

Cheers,
R.
On Mar 27, 2014 5:26 PM, "Lizhenbin" <lizhenbin@huawei.com> wrote:

>  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 and 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Zhenbin(Robin)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email