Eric, > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:37 PM > To: Hannes Gredler; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > Cc: Yakov Rekhter; <[email protected]>; Alvaro Retana (aretana) > Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-martin-spring-segment- > routing-ipv6-use-cases > > Late reply to Hannes point: > > On 28/03/14 22:23, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >the real question is what percentage of public Internet routers > > > >1) does have MPLS hardware forwarding support > >2) does have IPv6-SR hardware forwarding support. > > > >And > > Regarding the IPv6-SR compatibility, as SRH is basically 'loose source > routing', it only requires: > - SRH processing by all SR-enabled router whose segment id is in the > SRH, typically some PE routers. Those will need to be modified indeed > but those will be minority > - SRH forwarding (i.e. Not parsing or acting upon the SRH) for all > remaining routers. Those will be the majority
If indeed, as you said above, only "minory" of the routers (e.g., only PEs) would be able to process IPv6 SRH, then SR would *not* be able to support such use cases as various flavors of local protection, and traffic engineering (except for EPE). Conversely, support for various flavors of local protection and/or traffic engineering (other than EPE) would require all routers to support IPv6 SRH. Yakov. > > The latter is currently OK, I wrote a small script > https://www.vyncke.org/sr.php which basically sends a dummy SRH to your > browser (requirement is that your browser/clients supports IPv6) and > after a dozen of tests, all were successful. While this is not a > mathematical proof, this is good enough from my engineer's point of > view > > Hope this helps > > -éric _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
