On May 30, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > eric, > > <devils advocate> > if *just* loose source routing is required, then the same can get achieved > using > nested IP tunnels. no need for new architecture, no need for new signaling > protocol extensions, > perhaps some re-spin of forwarding hardware in order to push the large tunnel > strings. > </devils advocate>.
maybe but I don't see the advantage while SRH gives you way more capabilities that, at some point, may be requested as well (TE, LFA, EPE, ...). > point is that you can't get away with loose source routing semantics for > supporting > all the SR use-cases. thus the current 6man draft needs rework in order > to be somewhat feature congruent to the mpls-dataplane, which stefano > has agreed to post _soon_. that is correct. According to the comments received on version -00 (among which, yours) a new version is going to be released as soon as the co-authors completed the internal review. If it doesn't go fast enough for you, well, you'll have to live with that feeling. > i hope it does not take another 12 months > (e.g. like the last time when we have asked for the data ipv6-sr plane > specification > presented at mplswc2013 - actual publication data was feb 2014 ...) - Indeed, SR-IPv6 was initially presented at mplswc2013, then it triggered interest and collaboration from many parties. Note that we met during a couple of hours in Paris at that time and we gave you all the details of what we had in mind, including the ipv6 part. Then, at some point in the cycle, we published a draft describing what the authors worked out in terms of architecture and SRH details. I don't think I have to come with a justification about the amount of time it took. Anyway, in the mean time, implementation work from multiple parties started (for both mpls and v6 dataplanes). Now that we have multiple implementations, we are working on interoperability and we will, probably, again update some of the details but don't take this as a commitment from my side to publish anything in a delay that suits your time perception. s. > tx, > > /hannes > > On May 27, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > >> 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 >> >> 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
