Hi Robert,
Except the function indicated by all zeros, it does require mappings between
functions, function indications and locators. Take tenant network function as
an example☺
Best regards,
Xiaohu
发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] 代表 Robert Raszuk
发送时间: 2017年5月8日 20:13
收件人: Stewart Bryant
抄送: spring(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF Discussion; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; stefano
previdi; Alvaro Retana (aretana)
主题: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
Hi Stewart,
Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6
That is incorrect.
Please watch Les's presentation during last IETF where he clearly and correctly
stated that IGP extensions for SRv6 are optional and not required (unlike in
the case of SR-MPLS where such signalling of global labels is indeed necessary
to build "global labels" based forwarding).
As a matter of fact I knew this will generate confusion in IETF and recommended
to make it very clear in the drafts. Distribution of SID functions does not
need to be carried in routing protocols. And SRv6 SID locator function is
native to IPv6 routing hence no extensions needed. Sure they can be carried in
IGPs or BGP but this is just an option not necessity.
Best,
Robert.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
On 05/05/2017 11:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:
And to add one observation ..
Stewart makes a point that SR-MPLS can be deployed without mpls control plane.
Well it sure does not require LDP however IGP or BGP extensions for SR-MPLS
signalling is also an example of mpls control plane ... even if much simpler
than traditional cases it is still required.
Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6. You always have to provide
the mapping between the function, the function identifier and the function
location.
- Stewart