Also this draft doesn’t describe this use case afais. What I am taking about is
this:
Using MPLS-SR for the SID to G and SID to H iso using SR-UDP SID. Is this
envisioned?
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-------+ B +-------+ C +--------+ D +--------+ H |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+
| | |
| | |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| E +-------+ F +--------+ G |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+--------+
|IP(A->E)|
+--------+ +--------+
| L(G) | |L(G) |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| L(H) | | L(H) | |L(H)|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| Packet | ---> | Packet | ---> | Packet |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Also, it is a bit odd we have so many drafts on the same topic.
Btw what about BGP extensions?
On 14/08/2017, 04:58, "Uma Chunduri" <uma.chund...@huawei.com> wrote:
Wim -
That's been described here:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction-03.txt
--
Uma C.
-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim
(Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:55 PM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
The draft only defines procedures for SRoIP E2E, why don’t we envision
SRoIP to Interwork with native MPLS-SR.
What I mean is when using the SRoIP procedures the draft uses SRoIP at
every hop which is SR capable.
You could envision certain segments to do SRoIP and other segments to have
native MPLS-SR capability.
So my question is this in scope of this draft?
On 11/08/2017, 20:47, "spring on behalf of Adrian Farrel"
<spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
SPRING didn't meet in Prague so I presented this work in MPLS. Bruno
suggested
that maybe SPRING would be a better venue.
I'm not sure about that, although I do think both WGs should chat about
the
ideas.
The essence of this work is nothing more that MPLS-SR encapsulated in
UDP per
RFC 7510. What it achieves is a way to obtain the SR functionality that
we all
know and love in an IP network.
The approach is, of course, compatible with MPLS-SR. As the draft
says...
This document makes no changes to the segment routing architecture
and builds on existing protocol mechanisms such as the encapsulation
of MPLS within UDP defined in RFC 7510.
No new procedures are introduced, but existing mechanisms are
combined to achieve the desired result.
This is not intended to be a beauty contest with SRv6. As the draft
says...
The method defined is a complementary way of running SR in an IP
network that can be used alongside or interchangeably with that
defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. Implementers and
deployers should consider the benefits and drawbacks of each method
and select the approach most suited to their needs.
Thanks,
Adrian
> ________________________________________
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: 11 August 2017 19:39:59 (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon,
London
> To: Stewart Bryant; John E Drake; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr
> Revision: 01
> Title: A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
> Document date: 2017-08-11
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 16
> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-
> 01.txt
> Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr/
> Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01
> Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-
> sr-01
> Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01
>
> Abstract:
> Segment routing is a source routed forwarding method that allows
> packets to be steered through a network on paths other than the
> shortest path derived from the routing protocol. The approach uses
> information encoded in the packet header to partially or completely
> specify the route the packet takes through the network, and does
not
> make use of a signaling protocol to pre-install paths in the
network.
>
> Two different encapsulations have been defined to enable segment
> routing in an MPLS network and in an IPv6 network. While
> acknowledging that there is a strong need to support segment
routing
> in both environments, this document defines a converged, unified
> approach to segment routing that enables a single mechanism to be
> applied in both types of network. The resulting approach is also
> applicable to IPv4 networks without the need for any changes to the
> IPv4 specification.
>
> This document makes no changes to the segment routing architecture
> and builds on existing protocol mechanisms such as the
encapsulation
> of MPLS within UDP defined in RFC 7510.
>
> No new procedures are introduced, but existing mechanisms are
> combined to achieve the desired result.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
