> [Uma]: This helps in deployments, who is seeking source
routing paradigm, but SID stack on the packet is unsustainable. This
statement is applicable for both MPLS and IPv6 case.
>[KT] Could we look at why the SID stack is getting
"unsustainable" in the first place?
I am not sure what you want to look - plz don't ask topology of a
particular deployment and how the SRH/SR-MPLS path is crafted?
Please see the generic example and some of the references in the draft. You
have to tell me the issues summarized for various deployments (including
brownfield scenarios) are not an issue.
If this is not an issue there is no need for MSD capability either and all
the hoops to discover this capability and work around. I don't think you can
definitely say, you can limit X SR SIDs in SRH and Y labels etc..
>[KT] Dave's argument was in multicast context while he
was giving the p2p example perhaps as a worst case theoretical example.
IMHO we should not look at such worst case scenarios.
>To me, this is a hybrid proposal to bring a hop by hop
path (which is why the SID stack is so huge) like in RSVP-TE into an SR
network and then try to figure out a way to do this in IGPs. You can feel
free to disagree :-)
This is not the worst case scenario (I just referred to the thread overall
and discussion of adding a FIB entry is considered OK and being argued it
is not OK stating that as considered as "state" - I feel at some level we
are confusing with this and the soft state and refresh required thereof );
it could be the base scenario, depending on the deployment.
--
Uma C.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
