Xiaohu, Mapping can be also well known .. for example from the RFC clearly defining the functions. That clearly removes the need of *any* control plane to dynamically carry the values.
Cheers, R. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > Nobody said that such mapping must be distributed in a routing protocolJ > We just said that such mapping is always required no matter we use an MPLS > label as function instruction or using the latter part of an IPv6 address > as function instruction. > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > > > > *发件人:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *代表 *Robert Raszuk > *发送时间:* 2017年5月9日 12:21 > *收件人:* Xuxiaohu > *抄送:* stefano previdi; Stewart Bryant; Alvaro Retana (aretana); > [email protected]; [email protected]; IETF > Discussion; [email protected] > *主题:* Re: [spring] 答复: Genart last call review of > draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10 > > > > Hi, > > > > Can you point me to any SRv6 document mandating that such mapping MUST be > done in a routing protocol ? > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > > > On May 9, 2017 05:16, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > Except the function indicated by all zeros, it does require mappings > between functions, function indications and locators. Take tenant network > function as an exampleJ > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > > *发件人:* spring [mailto:[email protected]] *代表 *Robert Raszuk > *发送时间:* 2017年5月8日 20:13 > *收件人:* Stewart Bryant > *抄送:* [email protected]; IETF Discussion; [email protected]; > [email protected]; stefano previdi; Alvaro > Retana (aretana) > *主题:* Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use- > cases-10 > > > > > > Hi Stewart, > > > > > > > Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6 > > > > That is incorrect. > > > > Please watch Les's presentation during last IETF where he clearly and > correctly stated that IGP extensions for SRv6 are optional and not required > (unlike in the case of SR-MPLS where such signalling of global labels is > indeed necessary to build "global labels" based forwarding). > > > > As a matter of fact I knew this will generate confusion in IETF and > recommended to make it very clear in the drafts. Distribution of SID > functions does not need to be carried in routing protocols. And SRv6 SID > locator function is native to IPv6 routing hence no extensions needed. Sure > they can be carried in IGPs or BGP but this is just an option not > necessity. > > > > Best, > > Robert. > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On 05/05/2017 11:17, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > And to add one observation .. > > Stewart makes a point that SR-MPLS can be deployed without mpls control > plane. > > Well it sure does not require LDP however IGP or BGP extensions for > SR-MPLS signalling is also an example of mpls control plane ... even if > much simpler than traditional cases it is still required. > > > > > > Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6. You always have to > provide the mapping between the function, the function identifier and the > function location. > > - Stewart > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
