[c-nsp] Segment Routing
Mohammad Khalil
eng_mssk at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 8 02:43:56 EST 2017
Hi Patrick
Thanks for your mail
What confuses me is that it's mentioned that the segment routing is supported with ISIS in Cisco IOS XE Everest 16.4.1 , the version I have I already used it for that as I pasted the configurations but regarding TE it's not
BR,
Mohammad Khalil
________________________________
From: Patrick Cole <z at amused.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 11:16 PM
To: Mohammad Khalil; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing
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<http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/seg_routing/configuration/xe-16/segrt-xe-16-book.pdf>
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
>
> Segment Routing Configuration Guide - Cisco Systems
> www.cisco.com<http://www.cisco.com>
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Cisco_logo.svg/225px-Cisco_logo.svg.png]<http://www.cisco.com/>
Cisco Systems, Inc<http://www.cisco.com/>
www.cisco.com
Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO) is the worldwide leader in IT that helps companies seize the opportunities of tomorrow by proving that amazing things can happen when you connect ...
> Segment Routing Configuration Guide Americas Headquarters Cisco Systems,
> Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 USA
> http://www.cisco.com
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Cisco_logo.svg/225px-Cisco_logo.svg.png]<http://www.cisco.com/>
Cisco Systems, Inc<http://www.cisco.com/>
www.cisco.com
Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO) is the worldwide leader in IT that helps companies seize the opportunities of tomorrow by proving that amazing things can happen when you connect ...
>
> 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