nanog mailing list archives
SRm6 (was:SRv6)
From: Ron Bonica via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:14:27 +0000
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 service labeling mechanism described in draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt. These can be deployed on a mix and match basis. For example can deploy: * Draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt only, allowing traffic to follow the least-cost path from PE to PE. * Deploy draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt only, using a legacy method (VXLAN, RFC 4797) to label services. In all cases, the semantic of the IPv6 address is unchanged. There is no need to encode anything new in the IPv6 address. Ron Juniper Business Use Only
Current thread:
- SRm6 (was:SRv6) Ron Bonica via NANOG (Sep 16)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Robert Raszuk (Sep 16)
- RE: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Ron Bonica via NANOG (Sep 16)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) James Bensley (Sep 17)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Saku Ytti (Sep 17)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Robert Raszuk (Sep 17)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) James Bensley (Sep 17)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Jeff Tantsura (Sep 17)
- Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6) Robert Raszuk (Sep 16)