On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:48, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@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' spiel. [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. -- ++ytti