Re: SRm6 (was:SRv6)

[Robert Raszuk <robert () raszuk net>]

Hi Ron,

>  If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services

And what's wrong again with MPLS over UDP to accomplish the very same with
simplicity ?

MPLS - just a demux label to a VRF/CE
UDP with IPv6 header plain and simple

+ minor benefit: you get all of this with zero change to shipping hardware
and software ... Why do we need to go via decks of SRm6 slides and new wave
of protocols extensions ???

Best,
Robert.


On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:17 PM Ron Bonica via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
wrote:

> 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