Re: Segment Routing

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM Saku Ytti wrote: > On 22 May 2018 at 17:43, steve ulrich wrote: > > Hey, > > > sorry, yes. i was referring to SRTE wrt the pop operation. > > Yup RSVP=>SR is more ambiguous and debatable than LDP=>SR which is > unambiguous win.

Re: Segment Routing

> in the day's of yore, i know a few folks who built tooling to validate > and/or detect failure to sync between the IGP and LDP or detect data plane > black holing behaviors caused by resolution in the RIB w/no complementary > label allocation (or LDP convergence lagging significantly).

Re: Segment Routing

On 5/22/18 7:04 AM, steve ulrich wrote: fwiw - there's a potentially significant loss of visibility w/SR from a traffic management perspective depending on how it's deployed. though, i doubt the OP is really driving at this point. the data plane behavior on LDP is swap oriented, while the

Re: Segment Routing

sorry, yes. i was referring to SRTE wrt the pop operation. in most of the implementations i've poked at, there is the ability to specify a consistent label range, but it's not always the case. SIDs are not labels but they are encoded as labels. i hope operators have the option to configure

Re: Segment Routing

fwiw - there's a potentially significant loss of visibility w/SR from a traffic management perspective depending on how it's deployed. though, i doubt the OP is really driving at this point. the data plane behavior on LDP is swap oriented, while the data plane on SR is pop oriented. depending

RE: Segment Routing

Nexus supports LDP. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/5_x/nx-os/mpls/configuration/guide/mpls_cg/mp_ldp_overview.html Regards, Jakob

Re: Segment Routing

Hi Saku gotcha and I see most config examples are RSVP/SR-TE like, where in most of the networks I have come across basic LDP is more than acceptable. On Tue, May 22, 2018, 17:48 Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey Matt, > > > I guess my point is why go through the extra config to program

Re: Segment Routing

Hey Matt, > I guess my point is why go through the extra config to program labels for > each box when LDP does it for you? Why loose potential visibility to network > traffic? Cisco sales and marketing is digging huge into the SR game for > enterprise and SDWAN like backbone networking. They are

Re: Segment Routing

I guess my point is why go through the extra config to program labels for each box when LDP does it for you? Why loose potential visibility to network traffic? Cisco sales and marketing is digging huge into the SR game for enterprise and SDWAN like backbone networking. They are touting about the

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 17:43, steve ulrich wrote: Hey, > sorry, yes. i was referring to SRTE wrt the pop operation. Yup RSVP=>SR is more ambiguous and debatable than LDP=>SR which is unambiguous win. > not labels but they are encoded as labels. i hope operators have the

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 16:35, Saku Ytti wrote: > My first google hit shows IPv6 support: > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/example-configuring-spring-srgb.html I meant as a field deployment in an operator network, and not what documentation says code can do. > I

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 17:29, Mark Tinka wrote: > This is what I'm struggling to find, as for me, this would be the ideal > use-case for SR. My first google hit shows IPv6 support:

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 16:21, Saku Ytti wrote: > I have not, but I'm not good source as I don't track this. This is what I'm struggling to find, as for me, this would be the ideal use-case for SR. > I'm just > pointing out that LDP > was/is IPv4 protocol, where as SR IGP extensions are from day1

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 17:17, Mark Tinka wrote: > Have you seen an actual deployment in the field, forwarding IPv6 traffic > inside MPLS? My use-case would be to remove BGPv6 in the core, the same way > I removed BGPv4 from the core back in 2008. I have not, but I'm not good

Re: Segment Routing

Hey Steve, > the data plane behavior on LDP is swap oriented, while the data plane on SR > is pop oriented. depending on the hardware capabilities in use this may > have (subtle) traffic engineering or diagnostic implications at a minimum. > folks will likely have to build tooling to address

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 16:14, Saku Ytti wrote: > Yes. In ISIS you'd use Prefix-SID sTLV and attach it to TLV-236 (IPv6) > or TLV-237 (Multitopo IPv6). > > The standard itself has not had any IPv4 bias, IPv6 has had first > class support since first draft. Have you seen an actual deployment in the field,

Re: Segment Routing

Hey Mark, > Can I use that to create MPLS LSP's to carry IPv6 traffic over an IPv6 > next-hop, like LDPv6 has been designed to, i.e., not need for IPv4 in any > way to forward MPLS frames carrying an IPv6 payload? Yes. In ISIS you'd use Prefix-SID sTLV and attach it to TLV-236 (IPv6) or TLV-237

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 15:38, Saku Ytti wrote: > Why 'alas'? In ISIS you're free to signal Prefix-SID on IPv4 or IPv6, > there isn't anything inherently IPv4 in the standard. Can I use that to create MPLS LSP's to carry IPv6 traffic over an IPv6 next-hop, like LDPv6 has been designed to, i.e., not need

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 11:19, Matt Geary wrote: > really seeing the value of SR to replace LDP on my backbone. With some > scripting and lots of software tools I can make it just like LDP, but why? > So break the ease of LDP just to get label switching on my hub core not >

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 12:36, Mark Tinka wrote: > I was excited about SR because I thought it would finally enable native > MPLSv6 forwarding. But alas... Why 'alas'? In ISIS you're free to signal Prefix-SID on IPv4 or IPv6, there isn't anything inherently IPv4 in the standard.

Re: Segment Routing

SR as a replacement for LDP, but SR-LDP imterop is imteresting too. Do.you have any experience with that? On May 22, 2018 02:59, "dip" wrote: Matt, Just to clarify, Are you asking for SR and LDP interop or SR over LDP? Two different things. Thanks Dip On Fri, May

Re: Segment Routing

Yeah Cisco rep commented that adding LDP to nexus would make ASR obsolete. 48x10g with LDP for $5-7k Yeah no brainer. Although on other point I am not really seeing the value of SR to replace LDP on my backbone. With some scripting and lots of software tools I can make it just like LDP, but why?

Re: Segment Routing

Yes we are considering changing to SR on our backbone because LDP is not supported on the nexus switches. Although, we have no experience with SR and looks plainly simple but we loose some of the LSP path selection. On Tue, May 22, 2018, 10:05 Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 14:10, Ca By wrote: > > > > Well look at how many authors are on this rfc, that means it is super > good right? More authors, more brains > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07 > > > Actually it is just an embarasssing marketing technique. Sad!

Re: Segment Routing

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:39 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 22/May/18 10:51, James Bensley wrote: > > > I'm also interested in the uses cases. > > > > As a "typical" service provider (whatever that means) who doesn't have > > any SR specific requirements such as service

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 10:51, James Bensley wrote: > I'm also interested in the uses cases. > > As a "typical" service provider (whatever that means) who doesn't have > any SR specific requirements such as service chaining, the only > reason/feature SR has which currently makes me want to deploy it is >

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 10:19, Matt Geary wrote: > Yeah Cisco rep commented that adding LDP to nexus would make ASR > obsolete. 48x10g with LDP for $5-7k Yeah no brainer. Gee, someone at Cisco had their thinking cap on. Let's hope Gert isn't reading this, lest he vent-off about the 6500/7600 debacle (and

Re: Segment Routing

On 22 May 2018 at 09:14, Mark Tinka wrote: > I'm more curious about use-cases for folk considering SR, than SR itself. > > 4 years on, and I still can't find a reason to replace my LDP network > with SR. > > Your use-case makes sense, as it sounds like Cisco deliberately

Re: Segment Routing

On 22/May/18 10:06, Matt Geary wrote: > Yes we are considering changing to SR on our backbone because LDP is > not supported on the nexus switches. Although, we have no experience > with SR and looks plainly simple but we loose some of the LSP path > selection. Got you. I'm more curious about

Re: Segment Routing

On 18/May/18 12:11, Matt Geary wrote: > Hello maillist anyone had any experience with segment routing and its > performance over LDP? We are evaluating the option to move to SR over LDP > so we can label switch across our Nexus L3 switching environment. Is your use-case because you need label

Re: Segment Routing

Matt, Just to clarify, Are you asking for SR and LDP interop or SR over LDP? Two different things. Thanks Dip On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Matt Geary wrote: > Hello maillist anyone had any experience with segment routing and its > performance over LDP? We are

Re: Segment Routing for L2VPN?

September 20, 2015 at 12:59 PM > To: Jason Lixfeld <ja...@lixfeld.ca> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Segment Routing for L2VPN? > > >No, it works with L2VPNs also. Outer label is going to be SR label and > >inner label is your

Re: Segment Routing for L2VPN?

it will then be used. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Mohan Nanduri <mohan.nand...@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 12:59 PM To: Jason Lixfeld <ja...@lixfeld.ca> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Segment Routing for L2VPN

Re: Segment Routing for L2VPN?

No, it works with L2VPNs also. Outer label is going to be SR label and inner label is your L2VPN label. Cheers, -Mohan On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Hello! > > I've been doing some reading recently on Segment Routing. By all accounts, > it seems