Les
I have been reading through this tutorial on SR6 below which is really good.
https://www.segment-routing.net/images/srv6-intro-rev1d_for_PDF.pdf
So with SRV6 IPv6 data plane is essentially another underlay option to
traditional using existing infrastructure for mpls “SR-MPLS” using SRV6
Les
I did some reading and research and lab testing of SR on CISCO XR nodes
physical hardware and VIRL (virtual internet routing lab) and now I know why
the top section says IPv6 and MPLS data planes.
So IPv6 data plans is native IPv6 source routed with segment instructions in
the next
Les
I agree the document makes it clear throughout that then mpls dataplane
supports ipv4 and ipv6 however in the short Overview at the top I think it
should say the following:
SR’s control-plane can be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6 MPLS data-planes,
and
does not require any additional
Gyan -
I grant that UHP may not be widely used in deployments - but as it is a
supported option when using MPLS we saw no reason to eliminate support for it
in the signaling.
Being able to support it does not require folks to deploy it of course.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From:
Gyan -
The paragraph you cut and pasted is providing a short overview of Segment
Routing, which can be used on two different data planes - IPv6 and MPLS.
The introduction goes on to say:
"This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
introduced for Segment Routing
With SR is PHP P flag really necessary as that was used in with mpls
historically to offload the ultimate hop router from having to pop all labels
within the label stack but with high end routers these days the legacy PHP does
not provide any cpu processing gains and with LDP has resulted in
I noticed in the intro that IPv4 is not mentioned just IPv6 and mpls. Was that
on purpose.
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
Mirja -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:35 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> extensi...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Uma Chunduri
> ; aretana.i...@gmail.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
>
Hi Les,
Please see inline.
> On 14. May 2019, at 18:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>
> Mirja -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:58 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc:
Mirja -
Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:58 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps
> ; Uma Chunduri ;
> aretana.i...@gmail.com;
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
11 matches
Mail list logo
