Hi authors： Thanks for sharing the SRv6 deployment cases in china;
Can I express my views? From the contents of the section 2 and section 3 in your draft perspective: 1) Because the design of SRv6 is an incremental deployment over existing IPv6 network, it will not affect the existing IPv6 deployment and the existing IPv6 address allocation method. Therefore, the easiest way to allocate an IPv6 address for an SRv6 deployment is to take a / 40 or / 48 address block directly from the IPv6 address blocks allocated from RIR. In ordinary IPv6 address allocation method, even each broadband user may also be assign a / 64 prefix, and an organization needs to assign prefixes such as / 48, / 56, or /60, etc. Therefore, / 48 for SRv6 deployment is not a waste of addresses. 2) In section 3, it is not given how many bits each node needs to identify the node itself (i.e. N of B: N), which is a part of the locator. It is generally considered that 2 bytes are reasonable; 3) For FUNC.Length and Argu.Length, I think its length is a multiple of byte is better, it is more conducive to the read operation of the router. 4) Therefore, my point is that for a backbone network or a metropolitan area network, the / 48 address block is a reasonable deployment for SRv6, then / 64 is used as the locator for each node, and the next 4 bytes are used as func .length, and 2 bytes as Argu.length, the last 2 bytes are filled with 0; of course, as service SID is becoming mature, another /48 may be allocated for it for purpose of supporting SR service programming within SRv6 domain. 5) I believe, The benefits of SRv6-BE in section 2 are not brought by SRv6 itself, it is only side effect of SRv6. If we use MPLS over UDP tunnel in IPv4 environment, we can also achieve the same benefit of simple cross-domain VPN service deployment, which is the same as SRv6-BE, of course, it does not have TE capability. Cheers! Wang Weibin From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 12:08 AM To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com>; Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 PSP use case Hi all, We just updated our draft on the SRv6 Deployment Consideration. One of the new updates in the draft is to add some of the PSP use cases, which is inspired by the discussions over the mailing list. Your comments on the draft are very welcomed as well as more PSP use cases. Thank you! The posted draft can be found here, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tian-spring-srv6-deployment-consideration-01. Best regards, Shuping
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
