Hi Xu, Sure you could. You could do a lot of other things as well.
But what does this buy you if you already have dual stack network which most operators already do for years ? For clarity I do not consider as sufficient reason fear from one going into anaphylactic shock at the mention of IPv6 as a valid one. Cheers, R. On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > I think Yakov’s point could be interpreted as “you can use MPLS-SR in > conjunction with MPLS-over-GRE to realize the goal that you have mentioned, > i.e., only those 4 out of those 1000 nodes need to support segment routing. > None of the transit nodes needs to be SR aware”. For more details, please > see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip > and http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-spring-0.pptx > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > > 发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Robert Raszuk > 发送时间: 2014年3月27日 23:47 > 收件人: Yakov Rekhter > 抄送: Alvaro Retana, (aretana); [email protected] > 主题: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for > draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases > > > > Yakov, > > The topic here is traffic controll and traffic steering. In MPLS to the best > of my knowledge the only tool to accomplish that is MPLS TE. > > That in turn requires RSVP-TE and pretty heavy IGP extensions. > > I am not aware of any deployments of the above MPLS control planes over GRE > nor I am aware of using those when only subset of nodes in your domain > supports required extensions. > > If however you are pointing out that to replace LDP one can use GRE I > completly agree. > > Thx, > R. > > On Mar 27, 2014 4:27 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robert, > >> Hi Yakov, >> >> > The above assumes that the already available technology, MPLS, "may >> > not be available or deployable for lack of support on network >> > elements", yet a brand new technology, a new IPv6 Segment Routing >> > header, will be available, deployable, and supported on network >> > elements. The authors should elaborate on what makes them think so. >> >> Let's observe that in order to encapsulate traffic in MPLS in 1000 >> node network and steer it north and south 1000 nodes need to be able >> to support MPLS (or for that matter RSVP-TE and IGP extensions - let's >> leave aside inter-area problems). >> >> Contrary if the desire is to steer traffic via north and south nodes >> from given ingress node to egress node only those 4 out of those 1000 >> nodes need to support segment routing. Non of the transit nodes needs >> to be SR aware. > > The ability to carry MPLS over transit nodes that are not MPLS aware > is an already solved problem - it is called MPLS-over-GRE (rfc4023). > Implemented by multiple vendors. Known to be interoperable. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
