[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Thu Jun 11 04:51:00 UTC 2020

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:48, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On 10/Jun/20 21:36, Phil Bedard wrote:
> > In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6.  You use a v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific VPN service.  You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol.
> A BGPv6-free core is a decent use-case for us.

100% Eliminating label forwarding in core is not an asset, it is a
liability. Label forwarding is fast, cheap and simple[0]. You can do
it with on-chip memory in constant time. IP lookups are slow,
expensive and complex[0]. SRv6 marketing is false, bordering dishonest
marketing of an unclean abomination of a protocol. Every HW designer
has sighed in relief when I've said I don't care about it, because
it's also very HW unfriendly, like IPv6 generally. Unfortunately SRv6
is somewhat easy to market with the whole 'it's simple, just IP'

[0] None of this is hard to measure, it is a known fact. And all of it
matters, you can measure lower jitter for MPLS than IP, you can better
carry DDoS traffic when using MPLS compared to IP and you can have
more ports in front-plate for the same money, by spending external
memory SERDES for WAN ports.


More information about the NANOG mailing list