On 2/May/15 02:27, Phil Bedard wrote: > I think it’s a popular enough option these days in carrier networks that the > larger vendors do plan for it somewhat at this point. In the beginning > there were issues with how labels are allocated (per-VRF or per-prefix) which > leads to lots of potential issues. The ability for the box to look deep > enough into the packet as well to get good entropy for load balancing. If > you are doing something like seamless MPLS and carrying 3+ labels on a packet > some gear may have issues. You also may run into issues with not being able > to impose enough labels for something like FRR/backup tunnels on an ingress > node. Like I said though, there are some large carriers doing this today so > vendors have solved most of those issues by now.
Some vendors are building gear with off-the-shelf network processors that have limitations into how many labels can be supported. Nothing you can do about that since it's a hardware problem, and the vendors are not going to be developing in-house network processors for those platforms because the existing solution is quite cheap enough for them given the competition. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
