Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     In line possible answers
> 
>     Sent from my iPhone
> 
>     On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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: [phone] <tel:301%20502-1347>____
>>
>>     Email: [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>____
>>
>>     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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>