> From: Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:02 AM > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:46, <adamv0...@netconsultings.com> wrote: > > > Yes it can indeed, and that's moving towards the centre between the > extreme cases that David laid out. > > It's about how granular one wants to be in identifying an end-to-end path > between a pair of edge nodes. > > I agree with you that MPLS is still better than IP, and I tried to > > illustrate that even enumerating every possible paths using deep label > stack is not a problem (and even that can be alleviated using hierarchy of > LSPs). > > The entirety of my point is, if we were rational, we'd move towards > increasingly efficient solutions. And technically everything we do in MPLS > tunnels, we can do in IP tunnels and converse. Should we imagine a future > where all features and functions are supported in both, it's clear we should > want to do MPLS tunnels. Just the [IGP][BGP-LU] 8B overhead, compared to > IP 40B overhead should drive the point home, and ultimately, that's the only > difference, rest is implementation. > > And I'm saddened we've been marketed snake-oil like SRv6 with fake > promises of inherent advantages or simplicity 'just IP'. > > We can do better than MPLS, absolutely. But IP is worse. > Yes I absolutely agree,
Not to mention this whole thread is focused solely on next-hop identification -which is just the lowest of the layers of abstraction in the vertical stack. We haven’t talked about other "entities" that need identification like: VPNs, applications, policies (yes I'm looking at you VXLAN!) etc... - all of which are way better identified by a simple label rather than IPinIPinIP.... adam
