On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:58 PM xie...@chinatelecom.cn <xie...@chinatelecom.cn> wrote: > > > Hi, folks, > Last year China Telecom begun to implement SRv6 trial in Sichun province for > the bearing and interconnection of video platforms which are located in > different cities, service agilities,secure sepertion, traffic steering and > other features of SRv6 have been demonstrated in this trial. Based on this, > SRv6 will be implementated in larger-scale in CT. > No technologies is 100% perfect,I agree that compression mechanism is needed > to reduce the the overhead of long SID in the long term, but it is better to > be compatible withe SRH, instead of designing a complete new one. CRH is a > complete new design, it move the complexities from SRH to DOH. > Moreover, I hope more efforts of SRv6 should be given on how to support new > services,for instance, Application-aware network (APN). Meanwhile, we should > consider more on how to implmement smooth transition and protect the network > assetof carriers. > Chongfeng,
That presumes that SRv6 is a least common denominator in networks and indispensable core functionality. It's not. As already pointed there are existing alternatives that might be operative for adding services like APN. SRv6 is one manifestation, but not the only one-- there's NSH, SR-MPLS, other encapsulations, etc. From this POV, SRv6+, and even SRv6, is just another mechanism. Naturally, we want solutions that work across the broadest number of cases possible. So the question is: what are the common functionalities that could work across these different methods. In IPv6, it's DOH and HBH options that are common across all forms of routing header and packets. So, IMO, those should be considered first before investing in narrower solutions (i.e. TLVs is the routing header). There is a similar argument in security that AH should have been considered before creating a point solution in the HMAC of SRv6. Tom > Best regards > Chongfeng > > > From: Dirk Steinberg > Date: 2019-09-09 21:31 > To: Gyan Mishra > CC: SPRING WG List; 6...@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk; Rob Shakir; Tarek Saad > Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. > There seems to be some confusion regarding TI-LFA. > A couple of comments: > > - Remote LFA tunnel is not used with SR, only TI-LFA which > only operates on the node that is the PLR (point of local repair). > > - Any encapsulation on the ingress PE with or without EH has nothing > to do with TI-LFA except for the special case where the ingress PE > itself is the PLR. > > - TI-LFA is not an IGP extension and does not require one. > It is a purely local computation based on IGP topology. > > - The PLR for TI-LFA may need to insert some SIDs into the SID > list to steer the packet around the failure. For the LFA base case > no SIDs are needed at all. If SID insertion is needed, the PLR > will push the required number of labels in the MPLS case. > > For SRv6, the equivalent operation to the label push is to > insert an EH with the required SID list. The packet will already > have been encapsulated on the ingress PE and in the most > common Internet or VPN base use case it will not even have > an EH so that this EH insertion will result only in a single EH. > > Alternatively, the PLR could also be configured to perform > encapsulation with a new IPv6 header using the repair SID > as IPv6 destination address, without needing any EH. > This will work for the vast majority of cases. > Remember that one 128-bit SID in SRv6 is in most cases > equivalent to 2 MPLS labels, i.e. a node label plus an > adjacency SID can be encoded in a single SRv6 SID. > > Only in extreme cases would the PLR need to add an > EH to the new IPv6 header with more SIDs. > > - EH insertion for TI-LFA has nothing to do with stitching SRv6 domains. > > Hope it helps. > > Cheers > Dirk > > Am 08.09.2019 um 09:19 schrieb Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>: > > From reading through all the discussion threads the SR insertion is two fold > one being for FRR capabilities using Ti-LFA or remote LFA tunnel so end up > requiring double EH insertions on the Ingress PE tunnel head end SRv6 source > node and then second scenario being a possible EH insertions occurrence on > intermediate nodes. I have not read through the drafts or RFC regarding > Ti-LFA with SR but since that is an IGP extension I am guessing an opaque LSA > and is not the traditional MPLS FRR link/node/path protection that adds an > additional mpls shim so not sure why an EH insertion needs to occur for > Ti-LFA. Can someone clarify that use case for me. Also the EH insertion on > intermediate node what is the use case or reason for that. My guess is it’s > for special use case of stitching SRv6 domains together. Please clarify.. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > 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
