nanog mailing list archives
Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 07:57:12 +0000
On Mon Jan 17, 2022 at 09:25:47AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
High-end IP routing features (which includes MPLS) have always attracted additional costs on what are meant to be Layer 2/3 switches.
Isn't the argument here that if it's in most chip sets already it might reasonably be expected to be a standard low end feature by now, along with IPv6? That it isn't may be why people are open to SRv6 (I'm assuming some are based on this discussion) - if they have to pay extra they only want to do so where they are generating revenue from it, the end points. Complexity and architectural cleanliness are not a consideration, if a vendor makes a box that does the job at the right price there is a high risk people will buy it. brandon
Current thread:
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices, (continued)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 12)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 13)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Colton Conor (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? Raymond Burkholder (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? Mark Tinka (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead? scott (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Colton Conor (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Brandon Butterworth (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 17)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Mark Tinka (Jan 17)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Saku Ytti (Jan 15)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 16)
- Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices Jeff Tantsura (Jan 16)