[afnog] SRv6

[Mark Tinka]

More specifically, what I meant was at a data plane level, you get rid
of SR-MPLS and migrate to SRv6.

Mark.

On 12/Dec/18 09:24, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
> Heh again – SR without SRv6 – gets rid of LDP anyway – and RSVP-TE is
> also covered – because SRTE still works with normal SID’s.
>
>  
>
> The ONLY difference between SR and SRv6 is that instead of using the
> standard label stack as a kinda “packet wrapper” you are embedding the
> stuff inside extension headers – the rest of the stuff – applies
> entirely equally to both.
>
>  
>
> That’s what I don’t understand.
>
>  
>
> On standard SR – I can use RSVP pop and go – I can traffic engineer –
> I have NO need of LDP (other than if I’m using Martini, and that’s the
> same with SRv6 – because Martini has explicit LDP binding) – etc etc
>
>  
>
> The problem with SRv6 is that you are implementing variable length
> headers onto the ASIC’s – which is infinitely more complex – and that
> creates some very interesting challenges.  Effectively with SR –
> dependent on the implementation – you can eliminate the need for
> entropy labels by doing L4 hashing beneath the labels – I cannot see
> how you are going to do that if your packet header processing becomes
> as complex as it would in the case of SRv6. 
>
>  
>
> Andrew
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From: *Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:20
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>,
> "afnog at afnog.org" <afnog at afnog.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [afnog] SRv6
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 12/Dec/18 09:01, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
>     Mark,
>
>      
>
>     Thing is – you don’t need SRv6 to get rid of v4 – you can use v6
>     with SR using standard label stack – the only difference with SRv6
>     and SR is that your hops are embedded inside the v6 extension
>     headers rather than using standard label stack for the same
>     thing.  SR without SRv6 is entirely address family agnostic, hence
>     the question
>
>
> So SRv6 appears to be a complete alternative to (SR)MPLS.
>
> If you want to get rid of MPLS - and its associated control planes
> such as RSVP-TE, LDP, e.t.c - then you can encode the label stack in
> the IPv6 EH's since and totally take MPLS out of your network.
>
> That appears to be the use-case.
>
> Mark.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20181212/0c4d5293/attachment.html>