MPLSoUDP is not the technology you should be looking at, SRoUDP (RFC8663) is.
draft-bookham-rtgwg-nfix-arch describes an architecture that makes use of it to
provide an end2end SR path.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 17, 2020, 9:32 AM -0700, James Bensley ,
wrote:
>
>
> On 17 September 2020 11:05:24 CEST,
On 17 September 2020 11:05:24 CEST, Saku Ytti wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 11:03, James Bensley
>wrote:
>
>> MPLSoUDP lacks transport engineering features like explicit paths,
>FRR LFA and FRR rLFA, assuming only a single IP header is used for the
>transport abstraction [1]. If you want stu
Spot on.
And on the point of protection ... in all cases it is orthogonal to the
service itself. If you want to use it you enable it regardless if your
packet's transport is IPv4, IPv6, MPLS or any SR flavor.
Sure if you need to traffic engineer your services some form of path
control is required
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 11:03, James Bensley wrote:
> MPLSoUDP lacks transport engineering features like explicit paths, FRR LFA
> and FRR rLFA, assuming only a single IP header is used for the transport
> abstraction [1]. If you want stuff like TI-LFA (I assume this is supported in
> SRm6 and
On 16 September 2020 23:51:03 CEST, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>Hi Ron,
>
>> If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services
>
>And what's wrong again with MPLS over UDP to accomplish the very same
>with
>simplicity ?
>
>MPLS - just a demux label to a VRF/CE
>UDP with IPv6 header pl
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 5:51 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Ron,
> If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services
And what
Hi Ron,
> If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services
And what's wrong again with MPLS over UDP to accomplish the very same with
simplicity ?
MPLS - just a demux label to a VRF/CE
UDP with IPv6 header plain and simple
+ minor benefit: you get all of this with zero change t
Folks,
If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services, it makes
sense to:
* Retain RFC 4291 IPv6 address semantics
* Decouple the TE mechanism from the service labeling mechanism
Please consider the TE mechanism described in draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
and the ser
8 matches
Mail list logo
