On 1/15/2022 9:16 AM, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
On 1/15/22 10:22 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
And in this discussion group, when MPLS is mentioned, does that
include VPLS? Or do operators simply use MPLS and manually bang up
the various required point-to-point links? Or is there a better way
to do this?
For example, Free Range Routing can do do MPLS, but I don't think it
has a construct for VPLS (joining more than two sites together).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPLS has services that run on the top of it. VPLS is one of those
services. The other two main services are VPRN and pseudowires. First
the MPLS is configured (LSPs between nodes) and then the services are
configured that run on top of MPLS.
scott
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree it seems like MPLS is still the gold standard, but ideally I
would only want to have costly, MPLS devices on the edge, only where
needed. The core and transport devices I would love to be able to use
generic IPv6 enabled switches, that don't need to support LDP. Low end
switches from premium vendors, like Juniper's EX2200 - EX3400 don't
support LDP for example.
It is utter fallacy that MPLS is costly, MPLS is systematically and
fundamentally cheaper than IPv4 (and of course IPv6 costs more than
IPv4).
However if this doesn't reflect your day-to-day reality, then you can
always do MPLSoGRE, so that core does not need more than IP. So in no
scenario is this narrative justification for hiding MPLS headers
inside IP headers, which is expensive and complex, systematically and
fundamentally.
--
++ytti
