Re: [c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 11/Jun/20 17:32, David Sinn wrote:

> Respectfully, that is deployment dependent. In a traditional SP topology that focuses on large do everything boxes, 
> where the topology is fairly point-to-point and you only have a small handful of nodes at a PoP, labels can be fast, 
> cheap and easy. Given the lack of ECMP/WECMP, they remain fairly efficient within the hardware.
>
> However if you move away from large multi-chip systems, which hide internal links which can only be debugged and 
> monitored if you know the the obscure, often different ways in which they are partially exposed to the operator, and 
> to a system of fixed form-factor, single chip systems, labels fall apart at scale with high ECMP.

I'm curious about this statement - have you hit practical ECMP issues
with label switching at scale?

We have ECMP'ed label switch paths with multiple paths for a single FEC
all over the place, and those work fine both on Cisco and Junos (of all
sizes), both for IPv4 and IPv6 FEC's. Have done for years.

Unless I misunderstand your concern.

Mark.