[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Thu Jun 11 10:22:29 UTC 2020

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:57, Robert Raszuk <robert at raszuk.net> wrote:

> Nope that was not the main reason.
> Main reason was the belief that labels MUST be locally significant - and not domain wide unique. Just look at Juniper's SRm6 or now SRH ... they keep this notion of locally significant SIDs. It is deep in their DNA ... still.

Seems weird, because neither LDP or SR implies globally significant
labels, implementation choice. What SR does imply is a continuous
block of labels of equal size in domain.

> Now to your runt that MPLS is great because of exact match perhaps you missed it but number of solutions on the table (including RbR[**] I recently proposed) use exact match 4B locator based lookup in the v6 packets to get from segment end to segment end.

Which is making a simple thing a complex thing.

> On the other hand your comments about greatness of MPLS ... simplified data plane and depending on the hardware difference in jitter (in sub ms ranges - if that even matters) comes up with a lot of control plane complexity when you want to build a network across all continents, yet keep it scoped from IGP to areas or levels. No summarization in MPLS in FECs is something we should not sweep under the carpet.

MPLS complexity is trivial in control-plane and forwarding-plane
compared to IPV6 or SRv6 or RbR[**]. I'm not saying we can't do better
than MPLS, but the proposal here is blatantly worse.


More information about the NANOG mailing list