Re: LDPv6 Census Check

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:36, Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com> 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.

Then do IPv6-in-IPv6, and attach the inner IPv6 header to VRF,
pseudowire, what-have-you.

It is clear market needs tunnelling, and we should all understand that
colour of tunneling doesn't matter, what matters is how many bytes of
overhead does the tunnel add (the more bytes, the more bps leverage
attacker gets) and what is the cost of looking up the headers.
Evaluating 40B IPv6 and 4B MPLS tunneling headers based on objective
desirable qualities of tunneling, MPLS is blatantly better. But if
someone does not like MPLS, fair-game, they should have ability to do
IPV6 in IPv6 in IPv6 in IPv6, go crazy.

I'm not saying we can't improve over MPLS header, we can. But IPv6 is
just objectively inferior by key metrics of 'goodness' of tunneling.

-- 
  ++ytti