[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Jun 11 21:02:51 UTC 2020


On 11/Jun/20 17:32, David Sinn wrote:

> Respectfully, that is deployment dependent. In a traditional SP topology that focuses on large do everything boxes, where the topology is fairly point-to-point and you only have a small handful of nodes at a PoP, labels can be fast, cheap and easy. Given the lack of ECMP/WECMP, they remain fairly efficient within the hardware.
>
> However if you move away from large multi-chip systems, which hide internal links which can only be debugged and monitored if you know the the obscure, often different ways in which they are partially exposed to the operator, and to a system of fixed form-factor, single chip systems, labels fall apart at scale with high ECMP.

I'm curious about this statement - have you hit practical ECMP issues
with label switching at scale?

We have ECMP'ed label switch paths with multiple paths for a single FEC
all over the place, and those work fine both on Cisco and Junos (of all
sizes), both for IPv4 and IPv6 FEC's. Have done for years.

Unless I misunderstand your concern.

Mark.



More information about the NANOG mailing list