On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:39 AM Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:
> > > On 22/May/18 10:51, James Bensley wrote: > > > I'm also interested in the uses cases. > > > > As a "typical" service provider (whatever that means) who doesn't have > > any SR specific requirements such as service chaining, the only > > reason/feature SR has which currently makes me want to deploy it is > > TI-FLA (to improve our (r)LFA coverage) - but this is only for failure > > scenarios so under normal working conditions as far as I know, there > > is no benefit available to us right now. > > +1. > > I was excited about SR because I thought it would finally enable native > MPLSv6 forwarding. But alas... > > I've heard of "quiet" tests going on within some operator networks, but > if you look around, SR is being pushed by the vendors, and none of them > can give me a concrete example of a deployment in the wild worth talking > about. > > Of course, always open to correction... Well look at how many authors are on this rfc, that means it is super good right? More authors, more brains https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07 Actually it is just an embarasssing marketing technique. Sad! > > Mark. >
