Simple node SID TE with either SRv6 or SR-MPLS

[David Zimmerman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Hi, folks.  I’m activating the NANOG brain trust here because I’ve exhausted (and am exhausted from) efforts so far to 
seal the deal on what is probably simple stuff to y’all.

TL;DR:  I think I’m missing some specific glue to make my backbone data plane forward CE IPv4 traffic into a simple 
PE-to-PE node SID path.  I’ve tried both SRv6 steering IPv4 encap in IPv6 GRE (due to lack of End.DX4 or End.DT4) and 
SR-MPLS.  Anonymized and scrubbed topologies and configurations attached — Plan E for SRv6, Plan F* for SR-MPLS.  Using 
Junos 23.4R2-S5.6, looking for the magic “you forgot this part” for either way (though SRv6 + IPv6 GRE preferred).

Details:

I have a video partner with CEs at two sites on my internal WAN using SMPTE 2022-7 to generate two identical video 
streams.  I receive those on physically diverse links from his CEs to my PEs, then ideally carry them over diverse 
paths, which I need TE to do.  A path of node SIDs satisfies (for now) proof that I can do this (adjacency SIDs later). 
 Everything I’m doing passes Junos CLI syntax checking and “commit check” semantics, but when the change is complete, 
neither I nor my partner sees this work doing ... anything.  I should see his video test patterns having a significant 
bump in the “blue” path transcontinental end-to-end latency because I’m heading towards Canada then heading towards 
Mexico on my way between coasts.  The “red” path is almost a straight shot.

My PEs do not run BGP, so I need to do all of this entirely within IS-IS.  I believe my use of “color” in these 
configurations is a distraction that sounds like it should work but is misguided being a BGP knob.  I believe I’ve 
identified that IPv6 GRE on Junos will only use inet6.0 and will not get steered by the SID path in other tables 
despite my trying mechanisms like resolution-ribs.

I prefer to have this work with SRv6 because I’m greenfield and it’s kind of a moonshot.  But at this point I’ll defer 
to something more tried-and-true like SR-MPLS just to get things working.

Direct responses are great, public responses are cool if there are helpful learnings for others where my self-esteem in 
this space is fragile but sacrificial :-)

-dp

* Yes, “F” now stands for what you think it does

Attachment: planE_srv6-anonymized.set.txt
Description: planE_srv6-anonymized.set.txt

Attachment: planE_topology.txt
Description: planE_topology.txt

Attachment: planF_sr-mpls-anonymized.set.txt
Description: planF_sr-mpls-anonymized.set.txt

Attachment: planF_topology.txt
Description: planF_topology.txt

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/ZDACLMELAQ64R6763W4OZNYG4XKLSQE3/