Hi Joel, thank you for reviewing U-SID draft. I'm looking forward to reading a more detailed analysis.
Regards, Greg On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > No Greg, uSID does not bring all the benefits of SRv6 while using > shorter SIDs. > It also violates the basic IP archtiecture really abdly. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Gyan, > > you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. > > But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is > > considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID > > for SRv6 > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr/>. > > U-SID benefits from all the advantages SRH provides while adding a > > higher density of SIDs thus allowing stricter path control. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:02 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com > > <mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > In line possible answers > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Oct 4, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com > > <mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> 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 > >> <https://www.google. > .com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> FDC1 > >> 3rd Floor____ > >> > >> Silver Spring, MD 20904____ > >> > >> United States____ > >> > >> Phone: 301 502-1347 <tel:301%20502-1347>____ > >> > >> Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com > >> <mailto:gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>____ > >> > >> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT > >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > BESS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
