nanog mailing list archives
Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:10:56 +0200
Isn't the argument here that if it's in most chip sets already it might reasonably be expected to be a standard low end feature by now, along with IPv6? That it isn't may be why people are open to SRv6 (I'm assuming some are based on this discussion) - if they have to pay extra they only want to do so where they are generating revenue from it, the end points.
HW doing IPv6 does not imply HW being able to do SRv6. SRv6 is not IPV6, SRv6 is MPLS embedded in (HW) complex way in EH. Heck, EH is specified in such a way that no HW device is technically IPv6 capable. What happens when you stack EH headers is question mark, some devices revert to crawl (Nokia FP), some devices drop packet in HW after it sees more than N ER (Juniper Trio). And how does that imply devices capability to find L4 headers and honour ECMP, ACL, QOS is a question mark. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices, (continued)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 13)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Colton Conor (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? Raymond Burkholder (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? Mark Tinka (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? scott (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Colton Conor (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Brandon Butterworth (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 17)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 17)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 16)