Segment Routing

Tue May 22 19:54:47 UTC 2018

On 5/22/18 7:04 AM, steve ulrich wrote:
> fwiw - there's a potentially significant loss of visibility w/SR from a
> traffic management perspective depending on how it's deployed.  though, i
> doubt the OP is really driving at this point.
>
> the data plane behavior on LDP is swap oriented, while the data plane on SR
> is pop oriented.  depending on the hardware capabilities in use this may
> have (subtle) traffic engineering or diagnostic implications at a minimum.
> folks will likely have to build tooling to address this.
>
> we're pushing the bubble of complexity around.

Moving the complexity to where it scales better is a win all by itself.

>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:47 AM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 22 May 2018 at 11:19, Matt Geary <matt.geary at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> really seeing the value of SR to replace LDP on my backbone. With some
>>> scripting and lots of software tools I can make it just like LDP, but
>> why?
>>> So break the ease of LDP just to get label switching on my hub core not
>>> really seeing it, unless someone has done it and they are seeing the
>> value.
>>
>> Can you elaborate what scripting and software tools are needed? If you'd
>> talk
>> about RSVP particularly AutoBW and SR, then yeah, but SR on itself should
>> be less of a chore than LDP.
>>
>> SR is what MPLS was intended to be day1, it just wasn't very marketable
>> idea
>> to sell MPLS and sell need for changing all the IGPs as well.
>> LDP is added state, added signalling, added complexity with reduced
>> visibility.
>> SR is like full-mesh LDP (everyone has everyone's label POV), while also
>> removing one protocol entirely.
>>
>> --
>>    ++ytti
>>
>