Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

[Ahmed MostafaSaleh ElSawaf <[e-mail]>]

Gents

As an operator, we do hope to reduce the number of solutions, so that we do not need to deploy multiple solutions. I hope the WG can standard one single solution.
Also, since the CSID has been implemented by most vendors, I will suggest to adopt CSID at the beginning.


BR
AS

From: spring <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:09 PM
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression


For all operators around the world looking at deployment of SRv6 compression and being in a  holding pattern waiting for SRv6 compression to be standardized by the IETF.

Given the ubiquitous importance of SRV6 compression and MSD issues with long strict SR-TE explicit route object,  it is critical for interoperability for all steering use cases that exist today: enterprise, internet, private, access network - 5G wireless xHaul, mobile core, wireline, MBB, FBB.

We as a WG need a single standardized solution for SRv6 compression for interoperability to work and all vendors marching to the same sheet of music.

I agree that the NVO3 - GENEVE is a solid precedence path forward to take and for Spring WG to come to consensus and standardize on one solution and progress the other solutions as informational if implementations already exist.

Kind Regards

Gyan
Verizon Inc

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:12 AM Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Same here. We want a single standard method of SID compression to allow the WG to focus on finalizing it and get vendors hardware implementations updated.

Regards,
Mustapha.

From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:54 AM
To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

I agree with Wim’s statement that the precedent in NVO3 *could* apply here too: pick one solution as Standard’s track RFC, and once it is done, the others might be documented as Informational RFCs if they have implementations.

That would help the industry to move forward.

Thanks.
Jorge


From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:11 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [spring] SRv6 compression
Given the design team accomplished the work on providing requirements and analysis to compress an SRv6 SID list, I would recommend we pick 1 solution similar to what was done in NVO3 (when we discussed GENEVE, GUE, GPE, etc) given this has to be implemented in HW..

I hope we can conclude on this asap and move forward on this topic

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

M 301 502-1347


The information in this email may contain confidential material and it is intended solely for the addresses. Access to this  email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the email and destroy any copies of it, any disclosure, copying, distribution is prohibited and may be considered unlawful. Contents of this email and any attachments may be altered, Statement and opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender, and do not necessarily  reflect those of Saudi Telecommunications Company (STC).