[c-nsp] Segment Routing

Patrick Cole z at amused.net
Thu Jan 5 16:16:23 EST 2017


Mohammad,

If you look at the bottom of the document you will see that SR-TE is
requiring IOS XE Everest 16.4.1.

I had not seen this document, thanks - this answers my previous question
about the same thing.

Patrick

Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:34:19PM +0000, Mohammad Khalil wrote:


>    I am using the version csr1000v-universalk9.03.17.00.S.156-1.S-std to
>    simulate the traffic engineering using segment routing as per the below
>    link:
> 
>    http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/seg_routing/configuration/xe-16/segrt-xe-16-book.pdf
> 
>    Segment Routing Configuration Guide - Cisco Systems
>    www.cisco.com                          
>    Segment Routing Configuration Guide Americas Headquarters Cisco Systems,
>    Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 USA
>    http://www.cisco.com                   
> 
>    But am not able to find the needed commands under the tunnel interfaces
>    configuration mode
> 
>    BR,
> 
>    Mohammad Khalil
> 
>      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    From: CiscoNSP List <CiscoNSP_list at hotmail.com>
>    Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:35 PM
>    To: Mark Tees; Aaron
>    Cc: Mohammad Khalil; Patrick Cole; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>    Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing
>     
> 
>    I've yet to even test it, but am very keen to, and to hear from others who
>    are testing/using it in production(If anyone is??)...but, the basic
>    advantages of it - No LDP, No RSVP...just MPLS +IGP (ISIS/OSPF)...less
>    protocols(Reduced complexity/Simpler).....No LDP/IGP sync,
>    automated/native FRR(Sub 50m/sec convergence) ....basically built for
>    SDN/NVF
> 
>    LDP was created as a separate protocol to run alongside IGP simply to
>    provide MPLS label distribution/binding....they did this rather than
>    modify IGPs to support MPLS natively...its basically gaffer tape **** -
>    Networks would be much simpler if IGP could accommodate label
>    advertisement....No TE with LDP...LDP just follows IGPs best path....you
>    can play with metrics...but it's painful, and becomes extremely difficult
>    to get granular control over how traffic flows...only option is to use
>    RSVP-TE...yes, some use it, and it works well (auto-bandwidth etc)...but,
>    it becomes extremely complex, and really only "course" levels of control
>    and doesn't scale well....with SR one could use "sdn" to steer certain
>    traffic over different paths...eg voice over low latency path, web traffic
>    over high latency path...or proactively make automatic changes based on
>    the current state of the network(eg congestion, DDOS etc)....lots of
>    potential....but still very very new....lol, I wouldnt be deploying it
>    into a production network just yet with sdn that automatically makes
>    changes to how traffic paths...Maybe in a year or 2...Ill wait and see how
>    it goes in the lab first ****
> 
>      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    From: Mark Tees <marktees at gmail.com>
>    Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2017 5:52 PM
>    To: Aaron
>    Cc: Mohammad Khalil; Patrick Cole; CiscoNSP List;
>    cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>    Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing
>     
>    Sorry, by "worry" I mean in theory wouldn't need to use LDP. I don't
>    know how realistic this is just yet. I run LDP + 6PE right now and yes
>    it just does it's thing. I hope at one stage to swap that out to
>    native v4/v6 core label distrib via SR.
> 
>    The point as I understand it for TE is that for large networks that
>    have thousands of TE transit nodes keeping track of tunnel state this
>    won't be as much of an issue. Its a lot less complex which is nice for
>    basic TE use.
> 
>    On 4 January 2017 at 15:50, Aaron <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:
>    > Thanks Mark,
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > Help me here...  what is the "worry" with LDP that you speak of.  I
>    don't see
>    > the worry in LDP... it seems to do its thing without much intervention
>    from me
>    > at all.  About LDPv6, I'm assuming that ldpv6 is related to ipv6....
>    I've been
>    > testing 6VPE (ipv6 over top of mpls l3vpn) and it seems fine with my
>    > underlying ldp...so I'm not sure what to understand about that.
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > As for the second point of TE... I guess since I've never done any
>    MPLS-TE or
>    > RSVP-TE, I will have trouble seeing the benefit of SR over traditional
>    > RSVP-TE... but I will take note of your point.  So would you say that if
>    I
>    > learn about RSVP-TE and what I can accomplish with it, that I should NOT
>    > move in that direction, but spend time deploying SR and then benefit
>    from
>    > the easier TE ?
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > Thanks again Mark,
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > -Aaron
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > From: Mark Tees [mailto:marktees at gmail.com]
>    > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:42 PM
>    > To: Aaron <aaron1 at gvtc.com>
>    > Cc: Mohammad Khalil <eng_mssk at hotmail.com>; Patrick Cole <z at amused.net>;
>    > CiscoNSP List <CiscoNSP_list at hotmail.com>; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>    > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > Two benefits I can think of:
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >  Label distribution without having to worry about LDP or LDPv6.
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > Easy TE cases without having to worry about the state that comes with
>    > RSVP-TE.
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017, Aaron <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:
>    >
>    > I run an MPLS network for an ISP and have heard about SR/SPRING but I
>    don't
>    > know much about it.
>    >
>    > What would you tell someone like me as to how I would benefit from
>    SR/SPRING
>    > in my MPLS network ?   ...and if there isn't immediate benefit, are
>    there
>    > inevitable long-term benefits that I could reap by moving towards a
>    segment
>    > routed mpls network ?
>    >
>    > -Aaron
>    >
>    >
>    > _______________________________________________
>    > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>    > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>    > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > --
>    > Regards,
>    >
>    > Mark L. Tees
> 
>    --
>    Regards,
> 
>    Mark L. Tees



-- 
Patrick Cole <z at wwwires.com>
Senior Network Specialist
World Without Wires
PO Box 869. Palm Beach, QLD, 4221
Ph:  0410 626 630


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list