https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/qVc41lFqOknxAluPGYLjNWbk560/
", "time": "2024-07-22T22:58:44Z"}, {"author": "Ketan Talaulikar", "text": "Ongoing w
", "time": "2024-07-22T22:58:52Z"}, {"author": "Ketan Talaulikar", "text": "Ongoing WG adoption call in spring for srv6 and MPLS interworking
", "time": "2024-07-22T22:59:24Z"}, {"author": "Cheng Li", "text": "no
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:00:04Z"}, {"author": "Cheng Li", "text": "Same problem for me from Paris
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:00:19Z"}, {"author": "Dan Voyer", "text": "Cheng, you're saying you also have hard time to hear ?
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:01:59Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "there is a lot of echo remotely
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:02:13Z"}, {"author": "Eduard V", "text": "yes, metal in a voice
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:02:21Z"}, {"author": "Cheng Li", "text": "yes, hard for me
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:02:24Z"}, {"author": "Boris Khasanov", "text": "indeed
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:02:32Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "sigh! this is the reason we request remote speakers to check the audio !!
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:02:35Z"}, {"author": "Cheng Li", "text": "metal sounds in the audio
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:03:12Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "@Dhruv there are only 4 slides left i think
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:03:15Z"}, {"author": "Yuya Kawakami", "text": "the voice is also distorted for me. I can imagine how difficult it would be to hear them in the room.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:03:20Z"}, {"author": "Yuya Kawakami", "text": "the voice from the room is very clear
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:03:42Z"}, {"author": "Eduard V", "text": "Actually, E2E services (from Edge to VM) is the primary advantage of SRv6 . SR-MPLS could not give E2E.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:05:55Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "ooh they had NSH :-) who knew
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:07:09Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "@xinxin yi - lets start a thread in the mailing list to talk about your deployment! I wanted to undestand if you are using NSHoSRv6 or integrated NSH as per RFC 9491
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:08:19Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "@jim there was actually one customer on it ?
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:10:17Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": ":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:10:30Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "@daniel apparently lol
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:10:32Z"}, {"author": "yixinxin", "text": "Of course it's good.
\nNSH has some other issues, such as complicated configuration\uff0cand SRv6 more convenient.
yes SRv6 has proven itself for us ... and underlying reqs quite limited
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:16:34Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "mic drop
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:17:29Z"}, {"author": "Mike McBride", "text": "Can anyone point me to the spring SRv6 deployment draft that goes over transition mechanisms? Can\u2019t find it. Maybe heard the WG wrong from the mic.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:22:57Z"}, {"author": "Dan Voyer", "text": "@Mike, are you looking for this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking/
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:23:57Z"}, {"author": "Mike McBride", "text": "Thanks Dan. That looks to be it. I\u2019ll review.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:25:51Z"}, {"author": "Alvaro Retana", "text": "FYI about PMTU. The spring WG just finished the adoption of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy/
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:26:21Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "@mike last time i looked that document does not detail how to migrate from one protocol to the other. It mainly talks over interworking between the two data planes.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:29:48Z"}, {"author": "Dan Voyer", "text": "@jim and @Mike, agreed this is only an option in a tool kit, not a migration strategy
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:30:36Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "i guess the interworking is a key part of full migration journey
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:30:37Z"}, {"author": "Clayton Hassen", "text": "THe interworking draft is there to support just that when the end devices cannot support SRV6.....
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:32:01Z"}, {"author": "Ketan Talaulikar", "text": "Correct. The spring draft provides a set of building blocks for both transport and service interworking and migration. It does not specify a deployment design since that is subject to operators' requirements and considerations.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:33:55Z"}, {"author": "Clayton Hassen", "text": "I think a good outcome from this WG is to produce exactly that....a group of drafts defining best practices for migration, interworking and scalability
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:35:03Z"}, {"author": "Mike McBride", "text": "+1
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:35:24Z"}, {"author": "Eduard V", "text": "It was SRv6 advantages, not problem summary.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:35:45Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "starts well a project when your problems are positive
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:39:22Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "i think he needs to turn his volume down
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:42:00Z"}, {"author": "Tony Li", "text": "Someone has both mic and speakers open. Please start muting folks.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:42:31Z"}, {"author": "Tony Li", "text": "Jim Guichard said:
\n\n\n@mike last time i looked that document does not detail how to migrate from one protocol to the other. It mainly talks over interworking between the two data planes.
\n
Jim, it is not at all clear to me that this is required: ships-in-the-night is entirely doable. A PCE can compute a SRv6 path or an RSVP/TE path from the same database.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:44:55Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "My question was you why sharing the same node SID for P2P and P2MP service was an issue in your deployment?
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:44:55Z"}, {"author": "Dan Voyer", "text": "to add to Dhruv, what's the use case behind that ?
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:45:34Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "@tony 100% - i was just pointing out that the document simply discusses interworking - i made no judgment ;-)
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:46:33Z"}, {"author": "Jim Guichard", "text": "@tony although having said that ships-in-the-night could be part of the overall migration strategy - documenting how that might evolve would be super useful i think for the community
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:48:09Z"}, {"author": "Tony Li", "text": "Ok, but it's not clear to me what there is to write down. ;-) For each path you simply shift from RSVP to SRv6 when the appropriate path (and its backups) are SRv6-enabled.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:50:58Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "so one thing to keep in mind is if one of the benefits is reduced route scale needs + reduced ASIC reqs (ECMP FEC for MPLS, etc). it needs to be considered in the transitioning phase.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:52:12Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "Otherwise you end up with a new dataplane for scale/cost efficiency that needs to still support the old.
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:53:11Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "The interworking technically allows \"distinct\" dataplane to interconnect
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:54:02Z"}, {"author": "Tianran Zhou", "text": "I am sorry. I do not know why
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:54:26Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "why what ?
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:54:36Z"}, {"author": "Tony Li", "text": "At the cost of considerable complexity...
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:54:37Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Bernier", "text": "off to the mailing list
", "time": "2024-07-22T23:54:58Z"}]