On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 22:25, Benny Lyne Amorsen via cisco-nsp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't understand the point of SRv6. What equipment can support IPv6 > > routing, but can't support MPLS label switching? > This probably does not change anything for SRv6, as that too will likely > be an extra cost license. It makes non-MPLS tunnelling solutions very > attractive though, since you can get away with a very "cost-effective" > core and only require smarts in the edge. This is simply not fundamentally true, it may be true due to market perversion. But give student homework to design label switching chip and IPv6 switching chip, and you'll use less silicon for the label switching chip. And of course you spend less overhead on the tunnel. We need to decide if we are discussing a specific market situation or fundamentals. Ideally we'd drive the market to what is fundamentally most efficient, so that we pay the least amount of the kit that we use. If we drive SRv6, we drive cost up, if we drive MPLS, we drive cost down. Even today in many cases you can take a cheap L2 chip, and make it an MPLS switch, due to them supporting VLAN swap! Which has no clue of IPV6 or IPV4. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
