|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-7 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) has advanced significantly in recent years, establishing itself as an entire transport network solution. An increasing number of SRv6 deployments worldwide reflects the advantages of the technology's pillars: end-to-end micro-segmentation, service scalability, SLA enforcement, and programmability. |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
2025 marks the seventh time we have covered SRv6 in the annual EANTC interoperability test event. We have progressed from fundamental protocol aspects to EVPN services and high-availability support over compressed segment IDs ("µSIDs") - all this with a growing number of supporting vendors. This year, we extended the test scope to include a 5G x-haul transport use case, assessing the readiness of participating SRv6 implementations to meet the strict 5G fronthaul requirements. We have also confirmed another essential capability of SRv6 networks: link resource slicing, along with validated resource-guaranteed bandwidth for each slice. |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
To create a common baseline with all participants, we evaluated the interoperability of SRv6 regarding a range of services, focusing on L3VPN, EVPN, SRv6 features, and SRv6/SR-MPLS interworking. |
|
|
12 |
These tests included L3VPN over SRv6 using two flavors of compressed segment IDs: micro SID (µSID) and Generalized SID (G-SID). All participating vendors—Arista, Arrcus, Ciena, Ericsson, Juniper, H3C, Huawei, Keysight, and Nokia—supported µSID for the second consecutive year. However, only two of these vendors implemented G-SID H3C and Keysight. |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
14 |
We also evaluated BGP IPv4/IPv6 Global Routing Tables over SRv6. The EVPN tests covered ELANs, EVPN RT5, and VPWS single-homed services. Other essential tests evaluated SRv6's Unreachable Prefix Announcements (UPA), Flexible Algorithms, and Locator Summarization. |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
This year, we conducted a demonstration of bandwidth assurance using channelized sub-interfaces, validating strict bandwidth isolation between multiple sub-interfaces configured on the same physical interface. |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
18 |
The following test cases have been executed for this test area: |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
20 |
{{container cssClass="toc-list"}} |
|
|
21 |
{{include reference=".Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
22 |
{{/container}} |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
24 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
25 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:Main.Multi-Vendor MPLS & SDN Interoperability Test Report 2025.SR-MPLS.5G xHaul design with SR MPLS]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:L2L3 Services over SRv6]] |
|
|
26 |
))) |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-5 test-report-sidebar" %) |
|
|
29 |
((( |
|
|
30 |
{{box}} |
|
|
31 |
{{include reference="Main.Multi-Vendor MPLS & SDN Interoperability Test Report 2025.Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
32 |
{{/box}} |
|
|
33 |
))) |
|
|
34 |
))) |
