SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead?

Sat Jan 15 19:16:10 UTC 2022

On 1/15/22 10:22 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
> True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
> devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
> Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
And in this discussion group, when MPLS is mentioned, does that include 
VPLS?  Or do operators simply use MPLS and manually bang up the various 
required point-to-point links?  Or is there a better way to do this?

For example, Free Range Routing can do do MPLS, but I don't think it has 
a construct for VPLS (joining more than two sites together).

>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree it seems like MPLS is still the gold standard, but ideally I
>>> would only want to have costly, MPLS devices on the edge, only where
>>> needed. The core and transport devices I would love to be able to use
>>> generic IPv6 enabled switches, that don't need to support LDP. Low end
>>> switches from premium vendors, like Juniper's  EX2200 - EX3400 don't
>>> support LDP for example.
>> It is utter fallacy that MPLS is costly, MPLS is systematically and
>> fundamentally cheaper than IPv4 (and of course IPv6 costs more than
>> IPv4).
>>
>> However if this doesn't reflect your day-to-day reality, then you can
>> always do MPLSoGRE, so that core does not need more than IP. So in no
>> scenario is this narrative justification for hiding MPLS headers
>> inside IP headers, which is expensive and complex, systematically and
>> fundamentally.
>>
>> --
>>    ++ytti