Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wim,

> I agree that if you look into the details RFC8663 from a data-plane operation is very similar to CRH. It uses a tag and derives a destination ipv6 address from it.
> On top it if you look at the requirements, the following is possible with RFC8663
> 
> 	• It can steer the packet through a specific path. Implementations exists which do well beyond 8
> 	• No new VPN encapsulation is required
> 	• No new service chaining needed and various options possible.
> 	• Compliant to SPRING
> 	• Uses MPLS but it is used here as a lookup tag, not any different than the CRH proposal. In essence if you look at the details you can implement this with a complete v6 infrastructure and use the tag as a steering function. And uses 32 bit.
> 
> As such I don’t see why we need another encap to achieve something we already can do and is available in various implementations and is as efficient on the wire (looking at 32 bit, which is what people agree upon)

RFC8663 doesn't work between domains that are not directly connected. I want a solution where the connectivity between the domains is plain IPv6 (e.g. the internet). I have tried this with Andrew using CRH and that works fine. Part of the SR domain was in Kenya, part of it was in The Netherlands, and we could use CRH without any problems. That isn't possible using MPLS.

Cheers,
Sander