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

Please see my elaborated note on that ...

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/qvRUp8SC2cWeIE5UhhU9aKGtpHM

Cheers,
R.

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:03 PM Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>