RE: [c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

[<adamv0025 () netconsultings com>]

> From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:02 AM
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:46, <adamv0025 () 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