It does work across domains that are not directly connected, but that scenario
is not well described I have to admit. The operation is as I said very similar
to CRH.
Think of the MPLS tag as the same as the SID tag in CRH. From a data-plane all
packets on the wire will use v6 addresses, so inter-domain is possible.
This is no longer MPLS as people know it. Think of it as a tag that performs a
steering function as you have in mind with CRH.
On 26/05/2020, 16:30, "Sander Steffann" <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Wim,
> I agree that if you look into the details RFC8663 from a data-plane
operation is very similar to CRH. It uses a tag and derives a destination ipv6
address from it.
> On top it if you look at the requirements, the following is possible with
RFC8663
>
> • It can steer the packet through a specific path. Implementations
exists which do well beyond 8
> • No new VPN encapsulation is required
> • No new service chaining needed and various options possible.
> • Compliant to SPRING
> • Uses MPLS but it is used here as a lookup tag, not any different than
the CRH proposal. In essence if you look at the details you can implement this
with a complete v6 infrastructure and use the tag as a steering function. And
uses 32 bit.
>
> As such I don’t see why we need another encap to achieve something we
already can do and is available in various implementations and is as efficient
on the wire (looking at 32 bit, which is what people agree upon)
RFC8663 doesn't work between domains that are not directly connected. I
want a solution where the connectivity between the domains is plain IPv6 (e.g.
the internet). I have tried this with Andrew using CRH and that works fine.
Part of the SR domain was in Kenya, part of it was in The Netherlands, and we
could use CRH without any problems. That isn't possible using MPLS.
Cheers,
Sander
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
