RE: SRv6

[<aaron1 () gvtc com>]

Sorry guys, I'm not aware of much of what you mention as far as agenda, vendor motive, and hardware support, etc.... 

I'm still learning, but, It does seem interesting that the IP layer (v6) can now support vpn's without mpls.  So one 
less layer of encapsulation seems cool.  Don't get me wrong, I love all that mpls has done for us and offers, but, 
seems that SRx6 (x=v or m) is able to do it.  Seems that the end to end label challenges with unified mpls, and all the 
csc and vpn type a,b,c might be better done with an IPv6 stack of headers and SIDs.

(wow, I'm not a prophet, but am I sensing another death of a labeling protocol ?!  this would be interesting if like 
MPLS killed ATM.... SR kills MPLS !)  (namely SRv6/SRm6)

And with this v6 SID being smartly divided into Locator:Function(Argument), I'm reading that this will carry with it 
much more functionality as well, like network programmability, application-to-network interaction or something like 
that.

Oh and I do agree that this SRv6 terminology and architecture does make your head hurt, lol, there is some very 
different/new stuff going on there.

-Aaron