On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:39 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 22/May/18 10:51, James Bensley wrote:
I'm also interested in the uses cases.
As a "typical" service provider (whatever that means) who doesn't have any SR specific requirements such as service chaining, the only reason/feature SR has which currently makes me want to deploy it is TI-FLA (to improve our (r)LFA coverage) - but this is only for failure scenarios so under normal working conditions as far as I know, there is no benefit available to us right now.
+1.
I was excited about SR because I thought it would finally enable native MPLSv6 forwarding. But alas...
I've heard of "quiet" tests going on within some operator networks, but if you look around, SR is being pushed by the vendors, and none of them can give me a concrete example of a deployment in the wild worth talking about.
Of course, always open to correction...
Well look at how many authors are on this rfc, that means it is super good right? More authors, more brains https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07 Actually it is just an embarasssing marketing technique. Sad!
Mark.