Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

Hi Joel,
thank you for reviewing U-SID draft. I'm looking forward to reading a more
detailed analysis.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM 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
> >
>