Hello Tom, >> A Big progress is that the draft supports interworking with GTP over IPv6 in >> addition to GTP over IPv4. >> And we have made change SRv6 function to IPv6 encapsulation with SRH instead >> of SRH insertion by default. >> > > Hi Satoru, > > If there are no intermediate hops od SIDs being set when encapsulating > would a SR header still be needed or could this just be simple IP in > IP encpasulation? If is no SR header then it's possible that ILA > might then be used to completely eliminate the encapsulation overhead.
I think you’re right. You would find that case in the draft as ‘Traditional Mode’ which is equivalent with traditional GTP-U case. You seem you say ILA is also equivalent with that mode. In addition, this draft introduces ‘Enhance Mode’ to cover more advanced cases. IMO SR is designed not to maintain path states except at an ingress node. So the packet need to preserve original DA in the header that keep the egress node in stateless. It would be great if ILA is designed in the similar concept as well. If it’s not, it looks a kind of tradeoff, between reducing the overhead and keeping the statelessness. It’s not apple-to-apple comparison. To decide to choose which one need to be prioritized would depend on each deployment case in operators IMO. Cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
