IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD484120B57; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 6c6vNrv04UhE; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 DD6FC120B54; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id f12so12869333iog.12; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=OtNR656Wq3OAn3uDzh7kwJtDfiO0a843cvPPUlpj4x4=; b=tk8zrZSrSj9gH+UMHi2MiKsXX9zheE7CEADk22FLF39m8ZhAO4CTOUs14De3ts08C2 wnrXVVimvSurPpkC5a4ig1uIi0kgZCLE97Vr6J7sN449JMRLxnP/XLHn4OunxvHGd7EI m5hQc9QR5mvXYm9YJ0XDFPVYUBLm5DKGR6ZTUqRdDIqqgWhCiQRHsrwUnSVhbLA2ZCt1 9vvZIQhpW8tR0DoHmicH4ebL20VSdcPyTRsKV3FxAsuQSvPv3a6Z2/IRM/9AaRY1hMT2 ne0fog6QrFCfUtdtwlkJTXhpNKqaQPwwx7xbawHbhV6rBEjeJscfWB3d5mWehLj+6Z6c 9xxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=OtNR656Wq3OAn3uDzh7kwJtDfiO0a843cvPPUlpj4x4=; b=RDn6szWNQheHEWG1FSLI65nuNKROL+1p05eW5lFm334VSq8TYSJAyfPTQCjlElFFLR FGawicrDupdqm5aZkX9hUxxmTeWi8O6qrcZ8DF0Q0ZXu17FC6+mhrFEEWBBbOk9xo2Kk cWdPBgu2Bv/Kh+TMRNfGVQpPJ4OOiQJgaBuEvXLiR4HGeKXBKaNU25qg1zEWtqJoEPRq zdQQOY+1xJ8J0cD/9Ne5EeXZ3AeFolqSXOQCzpEl3nIYfrLPPnZ8moqv4nb090XInGGh jRQcgEdTClq/oG7olYQfX9W3VrNGCbkp0xFEUpb3Dn//sbA0YBQN+2+ZbFAOI/6jjGP6 QxaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW6f7x4bUGSMoY87nd/eVdMm65FeO7Cz7wiZ2s48573aFp2dBWz b0GdRWgLDcUEK5A/Bct+WS4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJpxZDTvgfjbbr9rp307iVe6uHg+66xEC3wp18aAA8YRQybW+qEoKkFBP+K+tBPwe7hm+05Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:6616:: with SMTP id k22mr10073196jac.129.1567778590135; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:307:293b::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l8sm3714456ioh.85.2019.09.06.07.03.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+
Thread-Index: ATA2M0I1YSfcPvsySeOhKIoXgM05s1FfTzAwx9IWoJo=
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:03:08 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR19MB3415BA05D2BD5525FEAE2771FCBA0@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB5463153B47BFE83350C566E7AEBA0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERm4x072JQZQovX0MVcea3=0DOCSESopAXj_SE1vMi8qkQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERm4x072JQZQovX0MVcea3=0DOCSESopAXj_SE1vMi8qkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR19MB3415BA05D2BD5525FEAE2771FCBA0BYAPR19MB3415namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/MgW2iYddUdVG6FnECAzm_jyAz7g>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:03:14 -0000

Hi Robert,

>> * If operators choose not to use MPLS transport SR-MPLS can be easily transported over IPv4 or IPv6 vanilla data plane
I’m little confused about the above argument – given it starts with don’t want to use MPLS, can you clarify?

Regards,
Tarek

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <rraszuk@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:33 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+

Dear Ron,

I think you forgot few main points in the summary:

* Many operators use SR-MPLS successfully and it has been both standardized and successfully deployed in the network with interoperable implementations

* The overhead on the data plane of SRv6+ is very comparable to overhead of SR-MPLS

* The control plane extensions BGP, IGP are available for SR-MPLS and non are available for SRv6+

* SRv6+ requires a new mapping of SIDs to prefixes to be distributed by control plane

* If operators choose not to use MPLS transport SR-MPLS can be easily transported over IPv4 or IPv6 vanilla data plane

* Extensions for additional applications like L3VPNs or L2VPNs will require another set of protocol and implementation changes.

* If there are vendors who do not want to provide SR-MPLS SID mapping to IPv6 addresses in their control planes let's focus standardization and industry work in this direction.

With all of the above I think it would be a serious mistake - at this point of time - to continue work on SRv6+ in the IETF.

Thank you,
Robert.


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:08 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Folks,

We have explored many facets of SRv6 and SRv6, sometime passionately. I think that this exploration is a good thing. In the words of Tolkien, “All who wander are not lost.”

But it may be time to refocus on the following:


· For many operators, SRv6 is not deployable unless the problem of header length is addressed

· Many objections the uSID proposal remain unanswered

· SRv6+ offers an alternative solution

Given these three facts, I think that it would be a mistake to discontinue work on SRv6+.

                                                                                   Ron



Juniper Business Use Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email