> >> Unless you want ECMP then it VERY much matters. But I guess since we are >> only talking about theoretical instead of building an actual practical >> network, it doesn't matter. > > Well blatantly we are, because in the real world most of the value of > MPLS tunnels is not available as IP tunnels. Again technically > entirely possible to replace MPLS tunnels with IP tunnels, just > question how much overhead you have in transporting the tunnel key and > how wide they are.
You may be, I am not. I'm talking about practical networks and the use-case that multiple large networks are going down around commodity ASIC's. And it is a practial question about the total solution not point-specific ones. Overhead is only one part. Lookup delay is not at all for the class I'm referring to. > Should we design a rational cost-efficient solution, we should choose > the lowest overhead and narrowest working keys. In the abstract, sure. But if you want a practical, deployable, production network, it's multi-dimensioned. David _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
