IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Overhead Analysis of SRv6

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9C73A1B39 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, 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 XMiifpFvKtBk for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (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 E03EE3A1C75 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id k18so2098234pfp.7 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=AlhHvPH9feiefjmYi1ZpHgPdoNaX4w+bxyNN+yiBSkU=; b=YSqm/KB/VU7Rg4cvAkRYoCJJFoX9q5PkT63hZnPz4Q2yEl5Xa+eckJsNNiU+V5XFky 0Px3iS4W8D4kt9Meyq6/fXz0aoQGh8AjnZAXGlgX5JJNmy1d2iTLbZQ0WJYmI8jiQGTw vR/RCPf4n1Q9pOpSOrmwdIT3aQtJB/uyA1R5taBtZNMtKs29kVs4WY3vTzbGtMkQz9eu qHsq8LTshmP3J6bgfgxbA0qOfhxtO3OjZavI+dDVd4oxa6zXfbDnBz7btmmC6U8pVZl5 CJ75G75rX/p5FHpMb4MSKHB7/NVRyajp299PVtvK4Rxitj1WMDN4z7YeSkKnhanWRdg0 FICg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=AlhHvPH9feiefjmYi1ZpHgPdoNaX4w+bxyNN+yiBSkU=; b=KdT7Zn3cMkNVSn+3nlLfwtctAl3tDyZrUr1tE6Y5IMSRZgdcjMe5P7Ng7hNcfbXhBa XFUoXsvWoA4O768m2XIm0HaMGPcoTngrh8JrUVQuzaCi3KvoVE1WgK3WIcDljd3aa0QG 01hi1alQTQb+iBAXdMo+M06minY3nnlci9DTwU2QyqvNQ+h5ONcMLRCurUeEYUXD7NPy Kndu1VQTRN8EiY7wYBaX2npo8NJl6NFx+gA7xoLDlktKCazhStXuBd/pCdguNhuNw2Pd MN/nJ4XdaPTxZ/36Khsqxr4PBDRFG+dX2wfHZv8yfzCjbJdNhQXDoG2VCtKAcvgkbPTR Zrdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533J3JX+C/MMJYmOudJw2qQx7kHMbQbvG9Z+Wvhlk61W3aq8MgRx mpSA1rw87zv99N1+c3WPMlY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtANH/2tGzRfn301gbhxn91Zxyve90joZgoeSuRYr7QVt7NkflizbY5pgEYuYdDpUYSNI1OA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:e119:: with SMTP id q25mr21193439pfh.300.1595866381407; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v15sm15590169pgo.15.2020.07.27.09.12.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-A02639DF-9DF6-401D-87A1-0FF838C09480"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Overhead Analysis of SRv6
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:12:59 -0700
Message-Id: <339B2A55-6F5B-4F82-A3A9-63776FF1EEE2@gmail.com>
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937F3C7B@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Cc: "tony.li@tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937F3C7B@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/mSYlXySAE_aJ2f78L5PB73AUhjU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:15:47 -0000

Hi Robin,

I’d like to see actual numbers, as per deployment.
It would really help operators to better understand pros/cons of a deployment and make a better informed decision.

Thanks!

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jul 27, 2020, at 08:50, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> In the deployment of SRv6, the overhead is truly an issue which is always proposed. Please refer to the "3.  Typical Application Scenarios"  and "4.  Analysis of SRH Overhead" of the following draft:
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-spring-shorter-srv6-sid-requirement-01
>  
> It provides some typical scenarios which introduce the challenges of SRv6 overhead and the analysis of SRH overhead is provided.
>  
> Since SRv6 can be deployed incrementally. We think the challenges of SRv6 overhead will increased gradually and the possible solution can become mature in the process.  One important thing is
> that the SRv6 compression solution also must be compatible with SRv6 and can be deployed incrementally.
>  
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email