On 1 November 2015 at 12:08, Jesper Skriver <jes...@skriver.dk> wrote:
> To do what you suggest, one either has to replicate the MPLS > table, so that we can handle the same label values for each of the > suggested MPLS-IPv4, MPLS-IPv6, MPLS-XX, MPLS-YY, with the only > different being that they link to different L2 rewrite objects > that set the appropriate ethertype. Or alternatively, one has to > carry forward information about the ethertype of the received > packet, and use it when sending the outgoing packet. > > Neither is practical. Like 8847, all these would go out with same ethertype it came in. Lookup would be exactly the same as 8847, only behavioural difference would be, what bits are used for balancing. Maybe I'm being thick, but I'm having difficulties seeing why this would be challenging. But it would be challenging to sell this composite ethertype idea, people would resist on premise 'we'll run out of ethertype field, if everyone needs to do this composite'. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
