IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 18 November 2019 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 9F8AC120B51 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:52:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 58CZIWbv53vu for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722B3120129 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id e187so15765172qkf.4 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:52:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1dS11PzZfKblmXbVouoFdaqZ2Av46yPjDkEXxIYALHo=; b=Ob0kBFvdTm2MMkGzHn5ehUqHOTuU3LJYnaYpBpGcGX3Va7JIsspclrlEpN2rv1SWN/ xGizmoo+ZZ6+ocqy7UeK9QCsWZ+KecE3OMUIlEkVI6r49GqqTOpxoaASL/BGopd6IYQa UooREQJ+bfpVvkuM/uBcfjDPWk3POVZPpIsQyzrLzqcsMIy4y/HLtMdPDiLM6BDcCIxD /wnNdusgAV3vjygei7gq37bJMTwoXMs8qKn0j7GTYY8MkhQi/Pk2yHAMV9tjyG50QLUZ xRl8HSyJ1arGP61X02xe5Gt99vC3Rl1ghCZyyJ85Bg2qv8/qaRjM+Tm0zMNNEidwXX6Y WIBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1dS11PzZfKblmXbVouoFdaqZ2Av46yPjDkEXxIYALHo=; b=fGiIaxi50O5zPNK7ktljpNWHS62CS+bho2OkXCEmnypzcKf5gC2NkXVWJWcxwgFZ8s Ey4eI6XBvJcUU7d4TtjCA1/P2sYrXvLgLU9Bq0FdFLoW8bQOZVwpJokWhY0oWqrmekjo a85OjwSnGrB4zuUIZU5oWufxtl87vrtDu29Sqy7C0mhO8IvP+On4qHwJF8bi0aH3TJL+ LuHVyFN4sXz0XqVCIzDUvnw/ScfQD1lkJsoYVVaWGQ1WWdLFv1Y5TYqLc4vTDQyGdd4V Xfd1ybqEdgNwQS9rb77oBJL4QIVTCjL1vdBDfvLdMeZUhAfqixSA5N76OYVOlxL3g7G+ zwGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVCd/Y3GsxtTXgCqpSAOP5W0Ist7bkcGLtO/6AQdVYttkNeDBJV wWS4HjjJggjEJPYAOPWCUqX6r5NTGuozzywJmsf0Ng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzyBSLTNqCjVFEi/aaJ5g9V1KuYvehMJPeJ+Wou1i4B8tHZBH/+zE3IG8obDhcj3oBUBUo08F7IvsWgTJin+M=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9d44:: with SMTP id g65mr25536954qke.302.1574110361273; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:52:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5FFFEEAB-A7B4-4DC9-92B5-30089546D96B@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB56998CDFBF4FF46DB4164360AE4D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB56998CDFBF4FF46DB4164360AE4D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:52:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMF_g8bgrRSOioKfDG+izjkzc4cyAA9a646a0kt-sjaRqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, "draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org" <draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebdecc0597a520b5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cpID1NMSqu-NdNmYl9t93_KLhL4>
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 20:52:49 -0000

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> 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>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 2:24 AM
> To: draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus@ietf.org; SPRING WG <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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email