> From: Saku Ytti <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 8:24 AM > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 18:14, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> There is no reason for IP to simpler or more complex in control-plane > >> compared to MPLS. > > > > > > Disagree. > > > > WIth flat MPLS transport labels must be present to reach all of your > > 100s or 1000s of LSP endpoints in another IGP area or your other > > global AS. Think VPN Option-C > > > > With IP transport all I need is a *single* IP summary route to my other area > or AS. > > > > I hope control plane difference is clear now. > > It is not, you are looking particular implementations, which have no implicit > correlation to the actual bytes imposed, either could do either. Only thing > which matters is what are the lookup keys and how many are there. What > algorithmic solution do I need in HW to find rewrite information for those > lookup keys. > Hey Robert, Happy new year! On a theoretical fundamental level I have to agree with Saku here, Think SDN controller implementation of CP for instance, the control-plane complexity of Intra-AS vs Inter-AS LSP programming is exactly the same in this example.
However on practical level, You're right in the complexity argument in a sense that we have to work with/support technology we currently have installed -which isn't pure SDN controlled Inter-AS setup, but more like ISIS + LDP/RSVP at the intra-AS layer and BGP-LU at the Inter-AS layer. And all the headaches (and elaborate hacks) around scaling in absence of summarization especially in setups with MPLS all the way to the access layer (e.g. cell-tower eNode B in RAN). adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
