IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011691209E3; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yRvGSVfZTfsn; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11865120AA0; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id l11so2199454wrx.5; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=70tyrC6HCOprDIRG729fSuCzgfDo7XAqqwYSlMNzIF8=; b=V9NfRu90+NuIHD0T0gyjJq/YwyW1NhGw39P1Bew1C7WQD+LyOTOBALAVxnxDUc+V/u xL7onpNaDRSb9UaGjBojOjbf3Cbr+/5OGd3oD8iMqRjB7w2x0q32ot3sb+0ehBvFAl0y C7LF2cgTD1IgSLqM1svMfew67v4GRzGSOZtUnhnH8wA/QdWK9RAOpBuLiAzSX7WELm9r Qp/tG6PfRqQqIBcv3Iy2up6QeWU2zlZpzg9CPrOLN0x+QHHSE6h/bhjhASKfLwLo4J23 WsuLCJEwCImlzs22/WXEDE66QhrldFdx+1z61l8l0w+K7MmQNhd5LtUbG20XzQ9nbDrU orEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=70tyrC6HCOprDIRG729fSuCzgfDo7XAqqwYSlMNzIF8=; b=DNVNo8twCRLmKnpUc2RZquGeK8xX8rVIyOf7dH8Iit2LtelhupGeQeZkcxxSkkgMiY y2VQA00eVQ9/Y8v8qPTPkedvOh0Wn9i6UvuVmH/+/p7d2jKkbaZAlXcno/5eV773SXfd RbJPF9G4p5/92IfCCHP1TAG7xxg5H1/xddEXJSTilvkhbRj7IfqAlSGtBqEUGu0tmvgA NOFykL5WAeuTBPIEtpWCcTh2Q/OEXRz1BDHcu+QYnHn3Z3Bhp1IS7mGLC0tshivbbnjv hBNhToD9vk69s+vviQEoUEVpXIFb4g9wwNtLMI9PouNjDLsybRY65f8Brmdl/+2yMno3 +4nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU+qjKUsDBNQ9u/mt15+W7Cp8wARXpXhiWjVbX44QOdgiGfmaEN UEVRuWWZxDFzO/C9GMdwmgE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzKRQ80YZdxfAHJqo1qcmI2TGPhn+i8U2a/GD2IKZQRWyddx9vz0rMvHI1NXyQAFNlsEUeoaQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d8c:: with SMTP id b12mr6045261wru.198.1568883400659; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.31] ([176.232.187.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s12sm9540656wrn.90.2019.09.19.01.56.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.2\))
Subject: Re: “SRV6+” complexity in forwarding
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <634900D2-FBCE-47CF-8907-C8B9CB3A4102@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:56:37 +0300
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "xiechf@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EA9C49DE-6A5E-46A4-BDA0-CEC1B14206E5@gmail.com>
References: <CAHd-QWtA21+2Sm616Fnw0D-eB7SNb_BeG8-A-MCLLFgTwSpOsg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB54632F09C712ADB30138CFA9AEBE0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR19MB3415D21403394F8129A4BAD8FCB90@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <30491F13-C652-45C3-AB2B-95F765FBB4EA@juniper.net> <65C5CB04-3A2F-4F83-A7C8-2045154F93AE@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463EC3250F2A303A3641839AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <91CBADAD-EFE6-46E1-A9D3-DAA111357179@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMGyUFRPDqCBo5SbLX486o_9GLpM6Zxf8KSt1voWiqhkGQ@mail.gmail.com> <E8D473B5-3E8D-4339-9A79-0CAE30750A55@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMFOy5PyTo=jPJkVrQOctdWjsTbD=7ix-2n89vodKzT3gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2F604D74-51CF-4F2F-AEA9-1CBDEEA9B9F7@gmail.com> <F09C2D09-D769-4817-AF73-97D6ED1BC4BF@lapishills.com> <201909120857387140042@chinatelecom.cn> <1568259664564.62561@bell.ca> <CAO42Z2wQ_8GEE+=nAMFBj+ape9Vf7fARVoOwGdCiUxdffkyXgw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463A04B05B4BD6AA294F7F0AEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6EA6F7C0-BEB2-4749-A6AB-62B1337213B2@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5463426F1668202EE5F183EFAE8F0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <634900D2-FBCE-47CF-8907-C8B9CB3A4102@cisco.com>
To: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/A7Ng0RLjxUtAI9czT19HQL_DXkg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:56:49 -0000


> On Sep 18, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> The complexity of "SRv6+" requires ASICs do much more work per packet vs SRv6.

Duh. More processing is more processing, whether done in hardware, software, or firmware. I'm not a fan of segment routing for several reasons, but this fact isn't inherently one of them.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email