Hi Robert: Agree with you. SRv6 is a completely different technology from SR MPLS. The biggest difference is that SRv6's Sid itself has routing capabilities. For example, it is aggregatable, it is programmable, it is globally unique over a larger scope. of. Sid's routing capabilities bring many benefits to the network. For example: network scalability, reliability, and simplified Overlay programming. So, I think that any optimization we do for SRv6 should not sacrifice Sid's own routing capabilities. If we just want to solve the interoperability problem between MPLS network and IP network, we can solve this problem in the field of SR MPLS.
Thank you, Zhibo From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 9:33 PM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+ Dear Ron, I think you forgot few main points in the summary: * Many operators use SR-MPLS successfully and it has been both standardized and successfully deployed in the network with interoperable implementations * The overhead on the data plane of SRv6+ is very comparable to overhead of SR-MPLS * The control plane extensions BGP, IGP are available for SR-MPLS and non are available for SRv6+ * SRv6+ requires a new mapping of SIDs to prefixes to be distributed by control plane * If operators choose not to use MPLS transport SR-MPLS can be easily transported over IPv4 or IPv6 vanilla data plane * Extensions for additional applications like L3VPNs or L2VPNs will require another set of protocol and implementation changes. * If there are vendors who do not want to provide SR-MPLS SID mapping to IPv6 addresses in their control planes let's focus standardization and industry work in this direction. With all of the above I think it would be a serious mistake - at this point of time - to continue work on SRv6+ in the IETF. Thank you, Robert. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:08 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Folks, We have explored many facets of SRv6 and SRv6, sometime passionately. I think that this exploration is a good thing. In the words of Tolkien, “All who wander are not lost.” But it may be time to refocus on the following: * For many operators, SRv6 is not deployable unless the problem of header length is addressed * Many objections the uSID proposal remain unanswered * SRv6+ offers an alternative solution Given these three facts, I think that it would be a mistake to discontinue work on SRv6+. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
