SR-MPLS over IPv6 satisfies CRH requirements
draft-steinberg-6man-crh-vs-sr-mpls-00
6MAN D. Steinberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Lapishills Consulting Limited
Intended status: Informational W. Henderickx
Expires: December 31, 2020 Nokia
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
W. Cheng
China Mobile
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
June 29, 2020
SR-MPLS over IPv6 satisfies CRH requirements
draft-steinberg-6man-crh-vs-sr-mpls-00
Abstract
SR-MPLS is a mature solution that provides highly scalable traffic
engineering capabilities in MPLS networks. This document analyzes
how SR-MPLS over IP exceeds the capabilities of the CRH, making the
latter redundant.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Steinberg, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftSR-MPLS over IPv6 satisfies CRH requirements June 2020
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. A Label by any Other Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. An Endpoint is an Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. All Roads Lead to Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. You Can't Manage What You Can't Measure . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. MTU Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
SR-MPLS [RFC8660] is a mature solution that provides highly scalable
traffic engineering capabilities in MPLS networks.
By encapsulating the MPLS label stack in an IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC4023],
or IP+UDP [RFC7510] header, an SR-MPLS policy can seamlessly traverse
IP-only routers in a network [RFC8663].
The SR-MPLS control plane can run on top of IPv4 or IPv6. The latter
is reminded in [I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane].
This document analyzes how SR-MPLS over IP provides all the
capabilities of CRH [I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr], making CRH
redundant.
The analysis shows that the capabilities provided by CRH are in fact
a subset of the capabilities provided by SR-MPLS over IPv6.
2. A Label by any Other Name
[I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr] specifies the encoding of identifiers
in 16- or 32-bit values and places them in the CRH. The CRH is to be
inspected at each node represented by an identifier.
Steinberg, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftSR-MPLS over IPv6 satisfies CRH requirements June 2020
SR-MPLS over IP encodes identifiers in 20-bit values within 32 bit
labels and places them in an in the SR-MPLS or UDP header.
Because these encodings must translate into an action and a location
(IPv6 address) there is really no difference between these encodings,
Show full document text