Re: [Srcomp] Compression proposals

["Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <[e-mail]>]

What’s the difference between looking up an MPLS label in a UDP header vs looking up “New Label Type” in a routing header?  They both result in a behavior and IP address, they both require each segment endpoint to implement the label lookup.

I’m asking, because from a data plane point of view I can’t point to a significant difference.  Perhaps you can?

Thanks!
  Darren

On 2021-01-26, 10:29 AM, "Ron Bonica" <rbonica=[e-mail]> wrote:


Darren,

RFC 8663 is the only proposal that requires all segment endpoints to be SR-MPLS aware. It isn’t an SRv6 compression proposal. It is SR-MPLS tunneled over IPv6.

                                                                                                           Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Srcomp <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:20 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>; Chengli (Cheng Li) <[e-mail]>; James Guichard <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Compression proposals

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Ron, we could ask that question of any mapping based proposal. Is it really a compression proposal?
It requires all of the segment endpoints to be “some label-lookup technology” aware.

 rfc8663 has its limitations, but it could be analyzed for completeness, given its already an rfc.

Darren.



On 2021-01-25, 2:11 PM, "Ron Bonica" <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Folks,

Is RFC 8663 really a compression proposal? It requires all of the segment endpoints to be MPLS aware?

                                                                                      Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; James Guichard <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Compression proposals

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Here is my summary of drafts for reading and analysis:

draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc
1.       Documents SRv6 SID behaviors to support  compression, combining SIDs from:
1.       draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid (SRv6 uSID)
2.       draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-np (SRv6 GSID)

draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid
2.       Documents a new or modified routing header for compression and how to build SRv6 SIDs

draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
3.       Documents new routing headers and a label map to IPv6 address and behavior

draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr
4.       Documents a new or modified routing header with variable length segments and a label map to IPv6 address and behavior

RFC8663
5.       Documents SR MPLS over IP(v6), a label mapped to IPv6 address and behavior.

Darren


On 2021-01-21, 10:33 PM, "Srcomp" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Jim,

Many thanks for your information! However, the second draft defines the architecture of G-SRv6, while the first draft defines the G-SRv6 for compression as we can see it from the name of the drafts. Therefore, they are a single solution.

Also, the third draft describes three types of solutions including G-SRv6, Micro SID and combination. Therefore, they are mainly two proposals in the links you proposed: G-SRv6 and Micro Segment.

In summary, we already have multiple proposals as listed below:

1.       G-SRv6 (One option in native SRv6 compression)

2.       Micro SID(One option in native SRv6 compression)
3.       V-SID(draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid)

4.       CRH(draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr)
5.       U-SID (draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr)

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Srcomp [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 2:25 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]<mailto:rbonica=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Compression proposals

Hi Ron,

There are several.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-02.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-02.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XQz6gvaf5fLsl1-HAyZF3mOPOTl2UN_a4ydV2oh6O6xNGbyyMoRZd0ULCD4E2xnW$>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-np-02.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-np-02.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XQz6gvaf5fLsl1-HAyZF3mOPOTl2UN_a4ydV2oh6O6xNGbyyMoRZd0ULCEP-jEq5$>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc-02.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc-02.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XQz6gvaf5fLsl1-HAyZF3mOPOTl2UN_a4ydV2oh6O6xNGbyyMoRZd0ULCEVZ0xVo$>

Jim
From: Srcomp <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:03 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Srcomp] Compression proposals

Folks,

The following are a few compression proposals:

6.       draft-decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid
7.       draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
8.       draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr
9.       draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid

Can anybody think of any others.

                                              Ron



Juniper Business Use Only