On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 21:41, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Well imagine you need only one level of tunneling but rich ECMP. > > Then with IP encap (even MPLS app demux carried in UDP) you just make sure > src UDP port is random and voila works very nicely. > > In contrast to achieve the same with MPLS you need Entropy label (which is > two - first the marker/indicator and then the actual value) + hardware > capable of reading it. Extending MPLS is byte expensive, we could certainly improve that on new tunneling headers. But it's still cheaper than looking up UDP, and potentially impossible (IPv6, EH). Of course if you are working with existing pipeline which has support for IIP UDP parsing but not entropy parsing then it's easy to say in that special case UDP is a better solution. But all things equal, MPLS still wins, but we could definitely improve upon it. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
