On 28/5/20 08:46, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: [...]
Some of the operators may not care about the SR name, but it is clear to me that the proposal in the CRH draft is a subset of Segment Routing (i.e. a reduced portion of Spring Architecture)
I find it kind of amusing when folks suggest that source routing routing is a spring or segment-routing thing, when all IPv4, CLNP, and IPv6 (with RHT0) have supported some for of it for *ages*, and all predate segment routing and the work of Spring wg.
CRH seems to me as a variant of RHT0, where rather than employing 128-bit addresses, they employ labels that are indirectly mapped to addresses, thus reducing the overhead in the packets themselves. With the obvious consequence that you need intermediate systems to support CRH (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to map the ID/label into an actual IPv6 address).
The above comment is meant neither in favor nor against CRH, but rather a reminder that source routing existed well before Spring, RFC8754, and others, and, as a result, well before Spring monopoly on routing headers (?) was declared.
Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
