In line possible answers Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bess, > > What is the benefit of SRv6 over SR-MPLS for greenfield deployments or > existing mpls deployments. > I think I answered my own question but please chime in with your thoughts.. This NANOG document talks about the state of TE with providers and currently the big show stopper with SRv6 which removes it off the table as a possibility is the SID depth and larger packet size given that customers are set to 9100 and the core is 9216 so when adding in mpls overhead vpn labels and Ti-LFA EH insertion at PLR node to PQ node that adding in the entire SID list for long TE paths that have huge SID depth makes SRv6 not viable at this point.. https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1646/20180627_Gray_The_State_Of_v1.pdf For existing implementations it appears from my research a no brainer to go with SR-MPLS as that is a painless seamless migration but SRv6 due to SID depth issues and given limited head room from customer MTU to the backbone MTU today we are over the limit with larger SID depth for Ti-LFA paths or non protected paths. Until that is addressed SRv6 unfortunately may not get much traction with service providers which I think due to the SRv6 issues ....uSID and SRv6+ may tend to be more viable and more attractive. > Regards, > > Gyan Mishra > IT Network Engineering & Technology > Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) > 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor > Silver Spring, MD 20904 > United States > Phone: 301 502-1347 > Email: [email protected] > www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT > > Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
