Hello Bruno.
According to the network programming draft, "Network programming combines
segment routing functions, both simple and complex, to achieve a networking
objective that goes beyond mere packet routing."
Sadly, the document offers little insight as to what those non-routing
objectives might be.
If SRv6 offers something beyond the mere packet routing capabilities of
SR-MPLS, the network programming draft would be the most appropriate place to
mention it. Otherwise, SRv6 is just an IPv6 version of SR-MPLS.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 8:12 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Ron,
From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:14 PM
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Chairs,
I believe that we have two independent requests for a comparison of the
benefits of SRv6 over SR-MPLS in the network programming draft.
A comparison of the benefits of SRv6 over SR-MPLS is one thing that could
possibly be discussed if there is interest from the WG.
E.g. to help network provider make a choice, or in the context of "beyond SRv6"
to help the WG identify the benefit/cost analysis of existing solutions and
what we want to achieve with new/extensions to SR data planes.
But why do you think that this would belong to
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?
Thanks,
--Bruno
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 11:55 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Ron,
If you want to discuss your analysis please let's do so in a separate email
thread out of the context of the Working Group Last Call of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
As I said before: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards
Track document and this topic is not about any standardization, hence out of
scope of this document.
Same applies to other content (e.g. illustrations) that was formerly in network
programming and we moved to a separate draft since it was not standardizing
anything at all and was merely informative.
Thanks,
Pablo.
From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 19:17
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Pablo,
RFC 8354 reinforces my analysis in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SolNvh35q4NS-PTVWOxXAzbTnMHltfvPWi_OSjhMYkmm_NucR6imYrrLvc35Kat6$>.
Are you saying that you agree with this analysis?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:17 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Ron,
SPRING has already done this work and documented the SRv6 use-cases in RFC8354
before progressing with the SRv6 standardization.
Further on, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track
document.
I fail to see how a cite from RFC8354 or any other text on "SRv6 vs SR-MPLS"
standardises anything at all.
Note that we have already removed text from
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (e.g. illustrations) because it was
not standardising anything.
Thank you for the suggestion,
Pablo.
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on
behalf of Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, 30 December 2019 at 11:08
To: SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative
advantages of SRv6
Pablo,
Would you consider adding a short section to the draft explaining the relative
advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS? This section would explain why an network
operator would deploy SRv6 instead of SR-MPLS.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
Please excuse any typos, sent from my 'smart'phone.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
