Re: [spring] SRm6: Motivation?

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> 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

A different architecture isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think the architecture is sound, and I prefer a strong architecture that needs some engineering work to a weaker architecture that is easier to implement any day. Build for the future etc.

> - scale, performance and complexity drawbacks

Not my field of expertise, so skipping this one.

> - no genuine advantage

These are the advantages that I see:
- fits cleanly within the IPv6 standard
- packet overhead comparable to SR-MPLS
- but doesn't need every box on the path to cooperate (I have participated in a test running SRm6 over the open internet: no tunnels, just worked)

I think SRm6 strikes the right balance between clean architecture, overhead and complexity. I my opinion this working group should pursue work on SRm6 for these reasons. I understand the need for finishing the work on SRv6, but at the same time lets work on new developments like SRm6, work on interoperability, and give operators the choice to run the protocol they prefer.

There is no need for competition here (and if there is, please take it outside the IETF), only the need for cooperation and coexistence.

Cheers,
Sander