Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation?
"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 23:45 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.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 14202120B6E; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:45:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=UNv8HepX; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=OWrftFn+
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 oGEQ9Pt-yaIM; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C17120B4C; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:45:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16426; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1574120720; x=1575330320; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=X7puaSYUK6RMsm6dmrAGXiC20jM9yiP0ufAb5AeaKyY=; b=UNv8HepXE+GohQJcW7bD2kWvPYB3Btvs95Uguv+OvrhnF2D0yuZ3t3ul rBjJ+jLdTFo4hGiCMZf1y3d/g7ygYkDaoRDvacWplfL8TVwMgDHfbSxn3 GtnEM2aFfjqjVp9iGEKq05vGsVnOICrCXSbRksLKoRlIwuxf2wSeN2q/X k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:LHX8ux3InEINGWbQsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxGOt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQCkDnJfj2Ryc7B89FElRi+iLzPA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DzAQCFLNNd/5JdJa1lGwEBAQEBAQEFAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBfoEcL1AFbFggBAsqhCqDRgOKcoJekx6EYoJSA1QJAQEBDAEBGAEMCAIBAYN7RQIXggwkOBMCAwsBAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVRAQEBAQMBARARChMBASwLAQsEAgEIEQEDAQEoAwICAiULFAMGCAIEAQ0FCAwHB4MBgXlNAy4BDqYfAoE4iGB1gTKCfgEBBYE4AoNHGIIXAwaBNoUbhmsPGIFAP4ERRoJMPoJiAQECAYEqNisJgloygiyQE4VHiUaPDQqCKocajlCaEY5IiDiRUAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSKBWHAVO4JsUBEUkRoMF4NQhRSFP3QBgSeNNQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,321,1569283200"; d="scan'208,217";a="366197685"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Nov 2019 23:45:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (xch-rcd-018.cisco.com [173.37.102.28]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xAINjJTm010181 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:45:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:45:18 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:45:17 -0600
Received: from NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:45:17 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jNny7R/Ub5plR6JaodT3xstMvoogbN6XT0wCMVhl6y+9ElrVl9SY1RbgDKndQD8zL62JuRsF0RO9qtw8NLhsQxqzNO1nfU9SjQeJVkAa7tsoCSceFJEaUJ+VJnbfIOdC5JM2OBG4JgmBDacmpgFfRdhOmTkYaatIGgeWVar+c6nmkxlysOQWJxTrndxCsoL8YKEyoRWik99d2D5+K2zOvHryHhohnoiCu8XBHofUZg3/BQf3Ni6NxsxjeAb8UCZoGvWwznMwXu8X1uKkUP4pALgQHpU58+oghEgauP5FTeYwFj9jozA0JSzhu2a8hz+vjT+lSwcFwXAWH5yEqLFmxQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=X7puaSYUK6RMsm6dmrAGXiC20jM9yiP0ufAb5AeaKyY=; b=AzjFZCOSq4Hqa3ecZw/+p5tKcMOzEDth6cfgNRmjy0LprV/yf9cHfKx3BJ1XGYHwzzlbkh9jCsgygl7JUjznWulW5FYMO9i0BfdP3c3LLKODK04HD/dl/4iqAYFKY5XYoBWkLR87q0o3E9b1xDhFPq95pLNqehXtTmzP24N2ta7T+5Lf2TJ0UQD9LrVU8eG1reXLnEL4U/Moi49jhWYhWqKZ7IZuIQAjLq2/ziHY3Td1n12IW/uRKsLbcTrrmtZ3+TPqPvaPRg+jTufOEvIeaXYmYNQKhIiTQbJ7rvtSqy7WMP5d23zNYNgflSmdZ4DExBkM7CVgsl0JWnyLO37UZw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=X7puaSYUK6RMsm6dmrAGXiC20jM9yiP0ufAb5AeaKyY=; b=OWrftFn+MVsgCQdRv228VPSYkPMD2ntkszn4VjkcRwJWltpVt8hMVMjg8GnF/0KMSb1c4kH9uOJxNbrb8XEONMtEUWXYIdG8AWcEN5IqlPLRRz/hiJXvHZCQmDzUUiscGqtc7k8vy3bTl/DxjgYxSZlaoXm6dAmY0G9PEN0NfHQ=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.68.150) by CY4PR11MB1637.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.70.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2451.22; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:45:16 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d3a:84a6:be65:e33f]) by CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d3a:84a6:be65:e33f%11]) with mapi id 15.20.2451.029; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:45:16 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org" <draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [spring] SRm6: Motivation?
Thread-Index: AQHVneE0qvZToEr+EEaqac0mKgSQzqeRWvQQgAANewCAAC3EAA==
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:45:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1541BB3093E44AD09832F776C14D0@CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5FFFEEAB-A7B4-4DC9-92B5-30089546D96B@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB56998CDFBF4FF46DB4164360AE4D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMF_g8bgrRSOioKfDG+izjkzc4cyAA9a646a0kt-sjaRqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMF_g8bgrRSOioKfDG+izjkzc4cyAA9a646a0kt-sjaRqg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0d4:1002::6d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 428bc3ca-25d7-4986-0df2-08d76c815d52
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB1637:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR11MB163739AF65AF92A02E5BF0ADC14D0@CY4PR11MB1637.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0225B0D5BC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(7696005)(446003)(5660300002)(53546011)(76176011)(2906002)(33656002)(316002)(99286004)(110136005)(54906003)(8936002)(81166006)(8676002)(11346002)(6116002)(790700001)(81156014)(74316002)(7736002)(102836004)(71200400001)(6506007)(186003)(46003)(256004)(71190400001)(14454004)(86362001)(66946007)(606006)(52536014)(4326008)(64756008)(66556008)(107886003)(561944003)(76116006)(25786009)(966005)(236005)(6436002)(476003)(54896002)(66476007)(6306002)(6246003)(66446008)(55016002)(486006)(229853002)(478600001)(9686003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR11MB1637; H:CY4PR11MB1541.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: YUlEOA7xweFHoamEjuUw43Z4W4khWhj8U9eIGu+bA53GtP9PuYBvdhhBt2YrZCHiGsg6b7Fd/pHA5fa7yxZKwuBaTyoWRf0thpJJVTY9TwzWiWKvjttkhFwoRkOmiLIrjqh8CJ7xsEMEP8YRBYLmg8KETtJQ9amDREcOtDwE1DL5hPQ9KbVj2zdm4bSRZ9VHk2LdYVdmA4IT/IyIwEA2KZCq+Im56p1w3LBXpkoh6M+IXXsACuG1pAgM4LxBXOeuS2K96w2rwF+jQbvi2G5kyRMlWX9NswGCA5dwuKp2thkunYErivAKtY/sT4UJqAYYxY1kZibqStrAuwvo/9c8ef6PwD35f29L+/jH4PzA6+QN16BjPaxTNF9TggA+xfzUPlcLVhY2RJTIKYVupEuRO+Ch5HPJdlIE/M8TJ9d51H4cdvlO0VkrwHKFMyJlIKoI
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY4PR11MB1541BB3093E44AD09832F776C14D0CY4PR11MB1541namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 428bc3ca-25d7-4986-0df2-08d76c815d52
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Nov 2019 23:45:16.7054 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 3rdCPBjm0Mvc436kxS9+Vx7LcmpfeIf/QDRAse3LHIE3dLdBMgkzfqkFs5LkUgmsCyVvm+a9Olw56PBuRtGdjw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1637
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.28, xch-rcd-018.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/TmlifE8Nm4ccAqumgku6A88AF8w>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation?
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 23:45:25 -0000
+1 As commented on the mike at the WG meeting, SRm6 being a *mapping* technique (that allocates IDs, distributes its state as IDs, and whose FIB is based these IDs and in which does ID swapping in the forwarding path), it is more appropriate to understand the genuine benefits of SRm6 over SR-MPLS IPv6 solutions. After all SR-MPLS was designed as a label mapping based source routing solution for both IPv4 and IPv6 control planes by the WG. Thanks, Ketan From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: 19 November 2019 04:53 To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Hello Ron, In your generous offer would you mind to also include in your document not only advantages of SRm6 over SRv6 but also compare it with the below parallel solutions: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-00 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-teas-ip-te-np-00 Kindest regards, Robert. On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:24 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Darren, It's always good to hear from you. Even when we disagree, the conversation is always civil and thought provoking. I am glad to hear that you are open to arguments suggesting that your analysis might be incorrect. So, I accept your challenge to produce a document that describes the advantages of SRm6 over SRv6, as well as the differences between SRm6 and SRv6. Expect some operational hoarse-sense as well as some architectural deep-diving. While the document will include words on scale and performance, running code will provide the most reliable evidence. Happy holidays, Ron Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@cisco.com<mailto:ddukes@cisco.com>> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 2:24 AM To: draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org<mailto:draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Subject: SRm6: Motivation? Hi Ron, to follow up on what was said at the mic. The current community analysis, comparing existing solutions (SRv6 and SR-MPLS for IPv6) with SRm6, had the following result: - a lot of differences (Architecture, Dataplane, Controlplane) and hence engineering cost - scale, performance and complexity drawbacks - no genuine advantage Hence, the very first thing you need to do is to clearly compare your solution with respect to SRv6 and SR-MPLS and demonstrate why the above analysis is incorrect. Only with such a logical analysis, will the community be able to judge whether this proposal should be pursued within SPRING. Thanks Darren _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Ron Bonica
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation? Ron Bonica