Sander, can you describe your use case. So far the only thing that people has
asked CRH to do is steering and as mentioned we have solutions for those. If
there are others, please share them..
On 28/05/2020, 16:58, "Sander Steffann" wrote:
Hi Robert,
> There can be a lot of acronymou
Weibin,
Inline…..
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:35 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Ron Bonica
; Joel M. Halpern
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] C
Sorry Typo 20 bit label not 2 byte label.
SR-MPLS still has the concept of FEC label binding but now just uses a
different range of 20 bit labels 16k-24k so is not overlapping with MPLS
LDP default label range.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:27 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> Robert
>
Robert
SR-MPLS is not using MPLS “LDPv4” but is still using the MPLS data plane
“layer 2 1/2” 4 byte shim now a much larger label stack subject to MSD
(Maximum SID Depth) issues with long static lsp SR-TE paths. SR-MPLS
still has the concept of FEC label binding but now just uses a different
ran
Ketan,
Please take a look at the version of the draft that we are reviewing. Values
0-15 are no longer reserved.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Erik Kline ; Zafar Ali (zali)
Cc:
Ketan,
Neither of these forwarding methods are unique to SR. In Section 3.1 of RFC
791, you will see that IPv4 had a Strict Source Route Option and a Loose Source
Route Option. These predate SR by roughly twenty-five years.
Hi,
All fine and your use case is valid. I never said it is not.
* But first it makes all those claims that solutions under discussion are
not to be used in Internet moot.
* Second you can use subset of SRH just fitted to your need end to end
without any encapsulation
* Last if I were you I wou
> And this is an important difference: some of us don't want
> encapsulation/tunneling, we want something that can be part of a
> non-encapsulated packet. There are use-cases where CRH used with
> encapsulating is the best solution, and there are cases where the packet
> itself can be steered w
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:46 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to
> me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e..
> a reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports
Hi Robert,
> There can be a lot of acronymous or names invented but under the hood it 16,
> 32 or 20 bit opaque bit string in both CRH and SR-MPLS which is mapped to a
> rewrite string. No more no less.
So far so good
> And rfc8663 precisely automated such rewrite to UDP encapsulation.
And th
Hi Ron,
After reading through many mails related to CRH in list, I found all CRH-SIDs
(allocated to prefix-sid and Adj-sid)
are of local significance in fact, its operation actually is not same as MPLS
Label nor SR-MPLS label (such as domain-wide prefix SID/label), all CRH-SIDs
are locally all
Fred and others,
I think there is some confusion here among many people.
SR-MPLS is not LDP MPLS ... even though both can be used for transport.
Nearly 25 years after introduction of tag switching people are highly
confused what MPLS is. Most do not even understand that service MPLS and
transpor
Let me quote Brian on this – because I think he said it better and more
succinctly than I could in my own words.
The use case is: some operators want this. That has been enough for the IETF
since 1986 (and is of course much more important than vendor preferences).
Thanks
Andrew
From: spring
Zafar,
We want this for planes, trains and automobiles – all of them, worldwide. And,
I am
not interested in looking at alternatives when I see exactly what I want in
CRH. I want
an IPv6-only solution without having to introduce an adjunct service like MPLS.
The reason compressed format is so i
Sometimes a known devil is better than an unknown one.
I think we need to be very careful in considering the introduction of a new
label/ID mapping technology into IPv6 Routing and it's ramifications.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six-01#section-5.1
The maxim
On 28/5/20 08:46, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
[...]
Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to
me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing
(i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture)
I find it kind of amusing when folks suggest
Hi Ron,
Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me
that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a
reduced portion of Spring Architecture) that only supports prefix and adjacency
SIDs as indicated by the two "forwarding methods".
h
Hi Erik,
Fully agree.
The idea was not to force ANY solution but to avoid “putting the cart before
the horse”.
As I responded to Fred at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gyqvpfSkCt9fEZLdXnbrNjNOWg4/
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
From: Erik Kline
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 5:40 PM
18 matches
Mail list logo
