RE: Routing Header Insertion

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Darren,

I would not infer that Juniper sees SRH insertion as desirable.

                                                                    Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:44 PM
To: Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Voyer, Daniel <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Routing Header Insertion

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Krzysztof thanks for the link, to me it does seem that Juniper sees SRH insertion for TILFA as desirable, as documented in draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion.

So Dan, I think we can jump to that conclusion supported by 19 implementations and 5 deployments as captured in draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status, including Juniper's.

Darren

On May 6, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Also,

There is short video discussing SRv6 TI-LFA EANTC test:

https://youtu.be/v9woK-7AiyA<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/youtu.be/v9woK-7AiyA__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TaDJL7YNeeQ7k_C0AX1_QHZk9QBMPGB_gcrjT6UGAdlpCkJ2gRyHQAxM4VlrWMYF$>

Thanks,
Krzysztof

On 2020 -May-06, at 14:09, Voyer, Daniel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Ron, yes - I echo Eric - all my respect.

Ron, I for one, would jump to conclusion for that specific use case where insertion is performed, and have the expected behaviour. This is the exact use case that was described over the years in this mailing list,

Now, obviously, this use case is contain within the operator domain. I don't expect an operator to have "TI-LFA" on their peering links with other transit/operator.

For people references, page 15 "TI-LFA over SRv6":
http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/MPLS2020/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/MPLS2020/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TaDJL7YNeeQ7k_C0AX1_QHZk9QBMPGB_gcrjT6UGAdlpCkJ2gRyHQAxM4XlMWSUv$>

Thanks,
dan

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=[e-mail]<mailto:evyncke=[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 7:08 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>>, 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [EXT]Re: Routing Header Insertion

Ron,

All my respect to you for this correction of yours.

Regards

-éric

PS: I was about to reply unicast to Ron but decided that Ron deserves some public appreciation for his email.

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2020 at 02:52
To: 6man <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Routing Header Insertion

Folks,

My apologies to Zafar Ali. Reading through the EANTC report, it appears the Juniper demonstration SRv6 Routing Header insertion to support TI-LFA. In that respect, Zafar is correct.

However, we should not jump to the conclusion that such behavior is desirable.

                                                                       Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

Juniper Business Use Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TaDJL7YNeeQ7k_C0AX1_QHZk9QBMPGB_gcrjT6UGAdlpCkJ2gRyHQAxM4Wt18ps-$>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------



Juniper Business Use Only