Hi Robert, I agree that LDP and RSVP-based MPLS transport tunnels between hypervisors or TORs isn't ideal as it is. IP-based tunnels are better in this regard with MPLS-based VPNs.
Best regards. -- aldrin On Sunday, December 9, 2012, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Aldirn, > > > Now with support for MPLS in merchant silicon, I don't see any good > reason > > why MPLS-based DCVPN solutions (IPVPN, E-VPN) should be held back > > For service demux I see no issue as well > > For transport I see two major issues: > > - MPLS requires new signalling protocol ... DC fabric and hosts which > do act as PEs should be as simple as possible, but not simpler hence > introduction of LDP or worse RSVP-TE to signal the labels seems not > helpful. > > - MPLS FECs can not be summarized. With IP we just need information > how to reach subnet X ... with MPLS (even if one would provide the > relaxed match) FECs are still /32s That's a lot of them in large data > centers. > > Cheers, > R. >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
