On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, 00:56 Ron Bonica,
wrote:
> Pablo,
>
>
>
> So, to make uSID work:
>
>
>
>- You have to get a large block (e.g., /32) from your RIR
>- You have to allocate a smaller block (e.g., /48) to each router for
>uSIDs
>- You can’t use more specifics from that block
+1
I think the need to ‘walk through the EH chain’ in fast-path is difficult, for
the last 2 decades, and will for the near future I guess.
The SRv6 is very careful not to ‘walk through the EH chain’.
Instead it just ‘handle the least leading header(s)’, with a preceding ‘FIB
lookup’ indication,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:58 PM xie...@chinatelecom.cn
wrote:
>
>
> Hi, folks,
> Last year China Telecom begun to implement SRv6 trial in Sichun province for
> the bearing and interconnection of video platforms which are located in
> different cities, service agilities,secure sepertion,
Hi, folks,
Last year China Telecom begun to implement SRv6 trial in Sichun province for
the bearing and interconnection of video platforms which are located in
different cities, service agilities,secure sepertion, traffic steering and
other features of SRv6 have been demonstrated in this
+1
The ability of using a single SRH to convey behaviour information wether they
are per-segment or per-path has proven to be very simple and quick to define in
various data plane targets.
At first analysis, trying to replicate with CRH + DOH variants, the logic
required for service
It's simple because IPv6 doesn't look past the fixed IPv6 header to perform
its forwarding, and matches on the Destination Address to determine if to
perform deeper packet host processing.
You're building much more complicated forwarding services if you're going
to be marching on TLVs etc. past
Hi Andrew,
> And yes, as was alluded to, I did raise the possibility of an inter-op
draft to facilitate
> forward movement here, and I had only one vendor out of all the vendors I
approached
> actually indicate opposition to this, so I would ask now directly on
list, can we work
> towards a
Thank you Ketan.
I believe it would be appropriate to have a separate codepoint for each OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 protocols. Within OSPFv3 we can distinguish the family IPv4 and IPv6
based on the prefix of the SID.
Mustapha.
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:21
Hi Andrew,
> There is a phrase that I have heard – and perhaps it applies here – perhaps
> we need to put our guns down – and find a way to in which we can move forward
> that while it probably will not satisfy everyone, will be in the interests of
> the market in general by avoiding a total
2019/09/11 0:35、Sander Steffann のメール:
> Hi,
>
>> If you say you are an operator, and ask us to disclose on where, for what,
>> scale and use case, please describe yours at first in very detail.
>
> ISP in The Netherlands, between 50k and 100k customers three datacenters,
> multiple
+1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago, but I cannot find the
draft on which we split the codepoint.
From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)"
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:31 AM
To: "Ketan
Andrew,
I would like to amplify something that you said. SRv6 and SRv6+ are both
designed to operate within limited domains. Beyond competing for market share,
the existence of one does not threaten the existence of the other.
I do not oppose the progressing of the SRv6 drafts (while, as a WG
Pablo,
So, to make uSID work:
* You have to get a large block (e.g., /32) from your RIR
* You have to allocate a smaller block (e.g., /48) to each router for uSIDs
* You can't use more specifics from that block for anything else (e.g.,
numbering interfaces)
* If you do, you
You are technically correct that the SR Architecture document does not
require the separation of topological behavior from service behavior.
On the other hand, MANY of us have notied, and tried to find solutions
for, the fact that the overloading of IP addresses for both identity and
location
Robert,
Are you suggesting an attempt to merge the best of SRv6 with the best of SRv6+?
This might be a good idea.
Ron
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:10 PM
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: Voyer, Daniel ;
Folks,
Can I ask those who have deployed SRv6 how they address SRHs that contain more
than 5 or 6 SIDs?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
___
16 matches
Mail list logo
