Mohammad, If you look at the bottom of the document you will see that SR-TE is requiring IOS XE Everest 16.4.1.
I had not seen this document, thanks - this answers my previous question about the same thing. Patrick Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:34:19PM +0000, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > I am using the version csr1000v-universalk9.03.17.00.S.156-1.S-std to > simulate the traffic engineering using segment routing as per the below > link: > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/seg_routing/configuration/xe-16/segrt-xe-16-book.pdf > > Segment Routing Configuration Guide - Cisco Systems > www.cisco.com > Segment Routing Configuration Guide Americas Headquarters Cisco Systems, > Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 USA > http://www.cisco.com > > But am not able to find the needed commands under the tunnel interfaces > configuration mode > > BR, > > Mohammad Khalil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: CiscoNSP List <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:35 PM > To: Mark Tees; Aaron > Cc: Mohammad Khalil; Patrick Cole; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing > > > I've yet to even test it, but am very keen to, and to hear from others who > are testing/using it in production(If anyone is??)...but, the basic > advantages of it - No LDP, No RSVP...just MPLS +IGP (ISIS/OSPF)...less > protocols(Reduced complexity/Simpler).....No LDP/IGP sync, > automated/native FRR(Sub 50m/sec convergence) ....basically built for > SDN/NVF > > LDP was created as a separate protocol to run alongside IGP simply to > provide MPLS label distribution/binding....they did this rather than > modify IGPs to support MPLS natively...its basically gaffer tape **** - > Networks would be much simpler if IGP could accommodate label > advertisement....No TE with LDP...LDP just follows IGPs best path....you > can play with metrics...but it's painful, and becomes extremely difficult > to get granular control over how traffic flows...only option is to use > RSVP-TE...yes, some use it, and it works well (auto-bandwidth etc)...but, > it becomes extremely complex, and really only "course" levels of control > and doesn't scale well....with SR one could use "sdn" to steer certain > traffic over different paths...eg voice over low latency path, web traffic > over high latency path...or proactively make automatic changes based on > the current state of the network(eg congestion, DDOS etc)....lots of > potential....but still very very new....lol, I wouldnt be deploying it > into a production network just yet with sdn that automatically makes > changes to how traffic paths...Maybe in a year or 2...Ill wait and see how > it goes in the lab first **** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Mark Tees <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2017 5:52 PM > To: Aaron > Cc: Mohammad Khalil; Patrick Cole; CiscoNSP List; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing > > Sorry, by "worry" I mean in theory wouldn't need to use LDP. I don't > know how realistic this is just yet. I run LDP + 6PE right now and yes > it just does it's thing. I hope at one stage to swap that out to > native v4/v6 core label distrib via SR. > > The point as I understand it for TE is that for large networks that > have thousands of TE transit nodes keeping track of tunnel state this > won't be as much of an issue. Its a lot less complex which is nice for > basic TE use. > > On 4 January 2017 at 15:50, Aaron <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Mark, > > > > > > > > Help me here... what is the "worry" with LDP that you speak of. I > don't see > > the worry in LDP... it seems to do its thing without much intervention > from me > > at all. About LDPv6, I'm assuming that ldpv6 is related to ipv6.... > I've been > > testing 6VPE (ipv6 over top of mpls l3vpn) and it seems fine with my > > underlying ldp...so I'm not sure what to understand about that. > > > > > > > > As for the second point of TE... I guess since I've never done any > MPLS-TE or > > RSVP-TE, I will have trouble seeing the benefit of SR over traditional > > RSVP-TE... but I will take note of your point. So would you say that if > I > > learn about RSVP-TE and what I can accomplish with it, that I should NOT > > move in that direction, but spend time deploying SR and then benefit > from > > the easier TE ? > > > > > > > > Thanks again Mark, > > > > > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > > > From: Mark Tees [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:42 PM > > To: Aaron <[email protected]> > > Cc: Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]>; Patrick Cole > <[email protected]>; > > CiscoNSP List <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing > > > > > > > > Two benefits I can think of: > > > > > > > > Label distribution without having to worry about LDP or LDPv6. > > > > > > > > Easy TE cases without having to worry about the state that comes with > > RSVP-TE. > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017, Aaron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I run an MPLS network for an ISP and have heard about SR/SPRING but I > don't > > know much about it. > > > > What would you tell someone like me as to how I would benefit from > SR/SPRING > > in my MPLS network ? ...and if there isn't immediate benefit, are > there > > inevitable long-term benefits that I could reap by moving towards a > segment > > routed mpls network ? > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Mark L. Tees > > -- > Regards, > > Mark L. Tees -- Patrick Cole <[email protected]> Senior Network Specialist World Without Wires PO Box 869. Palm Beach, QLD, 4221 Ph: 0410 626 630 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
