Subject: [spring] Re.: SPRING OpenFlow interworking discussion

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:59:29 -0400

Dear Alvaro,

Would there be any opportunity to discuss
SPRING OpenFlow interworking during the Toronto (IETF-90) mtg.?

It may be useful to include a statement like
the following sentence in Sec. 6 (Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes)
of the SPRING problem
statement draft (draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt).

"Interoperability with openFlow (https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn
-resources/onf-specifications/openflow) based non-SPRING nodes will be
discussed  in a future document."

Many thanks in advance.

Best.

Bhumip

Bhumip Khasnabish

​++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt
------------------------------

   - *From*: internet-drafts at ietf.org <[email-masked]>
   - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org <[email-masked]>
   - *Cc*: spring at ietf.org <[email-masked]>
   - *Date*: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:09:12 -0700
   - *List-id*: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.
   ietf.org <http://spring.ietf.org>>

------------------------------

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking
Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
        Authors         : Stefano Previdi
                          Clarence Filsfils
                          Bruno Decraene
                          Stephane Litkowski
                          Martin Horneffer
                          Ruediger Geib
                          Rob Shakir
                          Robert Raszuk
	Filename        : draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2014-06-26

Abstract:
   The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other than the
   normal shortest path, that a particular packet will traverse,
   benefits a number of network functions.  Source-based routing
   mechanisms have previously been specified for network protocols, but
   have not seen widespread adoption.  In this context, the term
   'source' means 'the point at which the explicit route is imposed'.

   This document outlines various use cases, with their requirements,
   that need to be taken into account by the Source Packet Routing in
   Networking (SPRING) architecture for unicast traffic.  Multicast use-
   cases and requirements are out of scope of this document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft
is:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/

There's also a htmlized version available
at:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01

A diff from the previous version is available
at:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP
at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:47:48 +0000

On 7/1/14 10:59 AM, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Bhumip:

Hi!  How are you?

If you're asking about time in the meeting..then then answer might be "yes" if there is a published draft to discuss and time in the agenda.  So far we haven't ironed out the whole agenda.

It may be useful to include a statement like
the following sentence in Sec. 6 (Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes) of the SPRING problem
statement draft (draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt).

"Interoperability with openFlow (https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-resources/onf-specifications/openflow) based non-SPRING nodes will be discussed  in a future document."

I'll let the authors of that draft comment..but this is a good time to put use cases forward.

Best regards!

Alvaro.