Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

+1

Hence, to avoid such violation, but still to use shorter SIDs, SRv6+ (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-05 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-05>) architecture has been proposed.

Thanks,
Krzysztof

> On 2019-Oct-06, at 05:18, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using shorter SIDs.
> It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>> Hi Gyan,
>> you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID for SRv6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr/>. U-SID benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a higher density of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control.
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>    In line possible answers
>>    Sent from my iPhone
>>    On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com
>>    <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Bess,
>>> 
>>>    What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield
>>>    deployments or existing mpls deployments.
>>> 
>>    I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your
>>    thoughts..
>>    This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and
>>    currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the
>>    table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given
>>    that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding
>>    in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to
>>    PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that
>>    have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.
>>    https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf
>>    For existing implementations it appears from my research a no
>>    brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration
>>    but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from
>>    customer MTU to the  backbone MTU today we are over the limit with
>>    larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths.  Until
>>    that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much traction with
>>    service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues ....uSID and
>>    SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive.
>>>    Regards,
>>> 
>>>    Gyan Mishra ____
>>> 
>>>    IT Network Engineering & Technology ____
>>> 
>>>    Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)____
>>> 
>>>    13101 Columbia Pike
>>>    <https://www.google..com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> FDC1
>>>    3rd Floor____
>>> 
>>>    Silver Spring, MD 20904____
>>> 
>>>    United States____
>>> 
>>>    Phone: 301 502-1347 <tel:301%20502-1347>____
>>> 
>>>    Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>>>    <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>____
>>> 
>>>    www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
>>>    <http://www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    Sent from my iPhone
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    BESS mailing list
>>    BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess