[afnog] SRv6

[Andrew Alston]

LOL – Thanks mark – you just convinced me I never wanna see SRv6 see the light of day – because that sounds positively terrible

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:38
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, "afnog at afnog.org" <afnog at afnog.org>
Subject: Re: [afnog] SRv6


On 12/Dec/18 09:32, Andrew Alston wrote:
Yeah – I get that – but to what advantage is what Im trying to understand.

SR-MPLS vs SRv6 – the only difference between the two is that in one case you are using a label stack on the outside of the packet – in the other you are encoding in EH.  If you encode in EH – you introduce packets with variable length headers that create ASIC issues and other issues – vs – simply handling a label stack.

Everything else – the rsvp-te, the ldp, all that other crap – disappears both ways – so why would anyone want to switch the labels to EH – whats the rationale behind it – that’s what I don’t understand

The claim is that since the EH being used in SRv6, you can have 128-bit sized SID's, while with SR-MPLS, you have just 32-bit sized SID's.

The extra "space" means that you can now do more things with SRv6 than just routing, e.g., the first 64 bits would be used for routing, then next 32 bits used to impose some action on the traffic, and the final 32 bits used to include some additional information. In summary, the claim if you can add more "network programmability (yuck!)" into the deployment.

Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20181212/65fb8d0d/attachment.html>