Re: [spring] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> all flavors support both 16-bit and 32-bit C-SID length.

Just for the record IMO there are real production networks which would
benefit also from 8-bit or 12-bit C-SIDs. So I am of the opinion that those
would be a very useful additions.

The real reason for vSID draft was an observation that one side will not
fit all and each network may be optimal with different length. So I am not
sure that going with 16 or 32 bits is best we can do.

Sure it is much less then 128 - no question. But it is almost same size as
MPLS label - so we could just advertise domain wide 20 bit as a C-SID and
leave data plane alone :).

Thx,
R,









On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:10 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Gyan, as a DT member, I can answer your analysis draft question.
>
> Consistent with the requirement document, proposals were analyzed with
> 16-bit and 32-bit SID lengths, though several supported additional options.
>
> The CSID draft recommended NEXT-C-SID use for 16-bit C-SIDs, and
> REPLACE-C-SID use for 32-bit C-SIDs. The design team followed this
> recommendation in its analysis, though the CSID draft notes all flavors
> support both 16-bit and 32-bit C-SID length.
>
> Darren
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2021-09-19, 3:34 PM, "spring" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Authors
>
>
>
> After having a few discussions on threads related to the SRv6 compression
> analysis draft results, as well as WG coming to consensus on a single SRv6
> compression solution, a few critical questions have come up related to
> C-SID draft that requires clarification by the authors.
>
>
>
> The C-SID draft has 3 compression solutions below and is a combination of
> the two drafts below which introduces 2 of the 3 compression solutions with
> the  C-SID draft introduction of yet a 3rd compression solution.
>
>
>
> Which of the 3 C-SID draft compression solutions was included as part of
> the DT analysis draft results and conclusion?
>
>
>
> This is a critical question that needs to be answered for clarification on
> the C-SID draft solution.
>
>
>
> As the WG has consensus on a single solution we need to have clarification
> from the authors which of the 3 compression solutions was included in the
> analysis.
>
>
>
> The three solutions are very different and all would yield different
> analysis results.
>
>
>
> I understand the authors have called the each solution a endpoint flavor
> which I see from the IANA codepoint allocations, however each flavor is a
> different solution.
>
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml
>
>
>
> So the WG as stated would like a single solution so now we need feedback
> from the authors which of the three solutions or endpoint flavors was part
> of the DT analysis draft that the authors would like to put forward as the
> single compression solution.
>
>
>
> C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below:
>
>
>
> Combination of the two drafts below:
>
>
>
> G-SID - Generalized SID “REPLACE-C-SID”
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03
>
>
>
> SRv6 uSID micro-segment “ NEXT-C-SID”
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>