<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/Jun/20 11:57, Robert Raszuk
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOj+MMHTrM1qiTjpU5_KC3S5_K6UvV4r3wPMjfRqniK1H=rSpw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div>Nope that was not the main reason. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We argued about it a lot in cisco back in TDP days - and
we lost. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I get this for VLAN's, being only 4,096 per broadcast domain and
all. <br>
<br>
But are we struggling with scaling label space? <br>
<br>
Just my 1+1, since I may be over-simplifying the issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOj+MMHTrM1qiTjpU5_KC3S5_K6UvV4r3wPMjfRqniK1H=rSpw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- - -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I found multi-level IS-IS to be useless in an MPLS network because
you still need to leak routes between L2 and L1 in order to form
MPLS FEC's. So you simplify the network by having a single L2 (or
just Area 0 in OSPF), because today's control planes can handle it.
And yes, some are brave enough to run RFC 3107 if it becomes a
problem, but if you can afford to string a network together across
all continents, I doubt an x86-based control plane with 64GB of RAM
is topping the list of your problems.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>