Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Hi Ron,

How about instead of jumping into the middle of SR piece first focus on
more fundamental comparison of IP transport vs MPLS transport in a network ?

Do you still believe that the concept of domain wide flooding of host
routes and labels attached to it - be it /32 or /128 prefixes is a wise
thing ?

For years MPLS world struggled with it ... and it still hurts in many ways
today.

Instead of nicely summarized areas or regions where you advertise single
IGP summary out, when your SPF is very small (and its timers can be very
aggressive) you are flooding within or across continents all of the hosts
routes from 1000s of routers slowing the entire network down. That's just
sick network architecture to me. And the only reason for doing it ... Your
transport label is not summarizable !

For other hints pls take a look at RFC 4023 & RFC 7510 :).

Do you really see any value to copy text from those drafts into subject
document ? I do not.

Cheers,
R.

PS. Once we first agree on the proper network transport - only then there
is time to focus on service level discussions.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:07 AM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Pablo,
>
>
>
> Would you consider adding a short section to the draft explaining the
> relative advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS? This section would explain why an
> network operator would deploy SRv6 instead of SR-MPLS.
>
>
>
>
>                                                                                       Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>