> all flavors support both 16-bit and 32-bit C-SID length. Just for the record IMO there are real production networks which would benefit also from 8-bit or 12-bit C-SIDs. So I am of the opinion that those would be a very useful additions.
The real reason for vSID draft was an observation that one side will not fit all and each network may be optimal with different length. So I am not sure that going with 16 or 32 bits is best we can do. Sure it is much less then 128 - no question. But it is almost same size as MPLS label - so we could just advertise domain wide 20 bit as a C-SID and leave data plane alone :). Thx, R, On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:10 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddu...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, as a DT member, I can answer your analysis draft question. > > Consistent with the requirement document, proposals were analyzed with > 16-bit and 32-bit SID lengths, though several supported additional options. > > The CSID draft recommended NEXT-C-SID use for 16-bit C-SIDs, and > REPLACE-C-SID use for 32-bit C-SIDs. The design team followed this > recommendation in its analysis, though the CSID draft notes all flavors > support both 16-bit and 32-bit C-SID length. > > Darren > > > > > > On 2021-09-19, 3:34 PM, "spring" <spring-boun...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Dear Authors > > > > After having a few discussions on threads related to the SRv6 compression > analysis draft results, as well as WG coming to consensus on a single SRv6 > compression solution, a few critical questions have come up related to > C-SID draft that requires clarification by the authors. > > > > The C-SID draft has 3 compression solutions below and is a combination of > the two drafts below which introduces 2 of the 3 compression solutions with > the C-SID draft introduction of yet a 3rd compression solution. > > > > Which of the 3 C-SID draft compression solutions was included as part of > the DT analysis draft results and conclusion? > > > > This is a critical question that needs to be answered for clarification on > the C-SID draft solution. > > > > As the WG has consensus on a single solution we need to have clarification > from the authors which of the 3 compression solutions was included in the > analysis. > > > > The three solutions are very different and all would yield different > analysis results. > > > > I understand the authors have called the each solution a endpoint flavor > which I see from the IANA codepoint allocations, however each flavor is a > different solution. > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml > > > > So the WG as stated would like a single solution so now we need feedback > from the authors which of the three solutions or endpoint flavors was part > of the DT analysis draft that the authors would like to put forward as the > single compression solution. > > > > C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below: > > > > Combination of the two drafts below: > > > > G-SID - Generalized SID “REPLACE-C-SID” > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03 > > > > SRv6 uSID micro-segment “ NEXT-C-SID” > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10 > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Gyan > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
