Hannes, I am following this thread from far away but I wonder about:
On 6/06/14 11:17, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. There is little to no SP traction on IPv6-SR. > those SPs who have voiced support in all reality > can be served well with nested IP tunnels based on > exisiting protocols (GRE, IPIP, L2TPv3 ) Tunnels are also expensive (cfr point below) but if you want to enforce a specific route for TE, then, I am afraid that this will be a lot of specific configuration (or states if dynamic) in a lot of nodes... As well as a lot of specific routes towards those tunnels. So, kind of heavy. Not to mention that with SRH you could have different paths among two end-points based on the application (web vs video) identified by some means (such as layer-4 information), way more complex to do it with tunnels and 'plain' routing. > 4. the cost of adding explicit routing forwarding capabilities > to IPv6 forwarding hardware is now visible (and guess what - its >expensive > to implement on high speed (100GBIT/s lookup engines - > (parsing IPv6-extensions headers does require a lot of memory >references) I am sure that you know how source routing works, only the router in the destination address main IPv6 header field needs to inspect the SR header, all others routers can safely act only on the DA and ignoring the extension header chain (of course, if ACL are applied on layer-4 you need to parse the extension header chain but this is the same with or without SR). Hope that my comment helps clarifying the context -éric _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
