Hi, On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:52:25AM +0330, Alireza Soltanian wrote: > So I don't get the point. > If EoMPLS over GRE is not supported so why EoMPLS without GRE is supported?
Because it's totally different protocols. One is "take this packet, slap
a label on it, send it out according to LFIB" - which current switch hardware
can easily do. The other one is "... and add a layer of IP encapsulation"
which isn't that hard on the sending side, but more complicated to get
right on the receiving side - "complicated" = "transistors on the silicon"
= "engineering trade-offs".
Switch = things done in silicon, fast and dumb
(Yes, I understand that a 2015 switch cannot be compared to a 2000 era
switch, but the general principle holds - "what is not in the silicion
can not be done with reasonable throughput, if at all")
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpMwDRcQZtfZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
