since I read this at different places, let me ask one clarifying question about
the stateless motivation:
I see that for SRv6 you may not need a state at the egress (at least not for
traffic forwarding) but for
Uplink/Downlink (UL/DL) you need a state at both edges of the communication
since the DL egress
serves as uplink ingress, correct?
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima
Sent: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 17:23
To: Tom Herbert
Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01.txt
>> 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
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
dmm mailing list
dmm mailing list