Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices

[Saku Ytti]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 at 19:22, 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

Marketing, not fundamentals. DC people are driving demand for VXLAN
and SRv6, because they assume MPLS is something scary and complex. So
vendors implement something scary and complex to appease DC people.
I'm sure in some years to the future, DC people will re-invent MPLS to
simplify their stack.

-- 
  ++ytti

Open source mapping of US high voltage electrical grid

[Eric Kuhnke]

Possibly of interest for network operators who have inter-city circuits,
where the underlying carrier is something on OPGW fiber in high voltage
lines.

These people seem to be making an effort at mapping out high voltage lines,
hydroelectric dams, substations, etc.

https://openinframap.org

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices

[Jeff Tantsura]

+1 Mark

There’s no modern silicon that doesn’t support MPLS (and is capable of imposing 
at least 3 labels). There’s 0 additional price for vendors to enable MPLS on 
their devices. The rest is subject to vendors’ licensing and is completely 
artificial. 
SR-MPLS uses MPLS data-plane and requires no changes to silicon, since head-end 
might be required to push more labels (TE, BSIDs, services)one needs to pay 
attention -  (RFC8491/8476) allow signaling of MSD (maximum SID depth) if 
centralized controller/PCE is used for path computation.
LDP after all the years of bug fixing is still a crappy protocol, moving to 
SR-MPLS makes all the sense.


Cheers,
Jeff

> On Jan 15, 2022, at 11:50, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1/15/22 19:22, 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.
> 
> Well, I don't entirely agree.
> 
> Pretty much all chips shipping now, either custom or merchant silicon, will 
> support MPLS. Whether the vendor chooses to implement it in code or not is a 
> whole other matter.
> 
> If you need MPLS, chances are you can afford it. If you don't, then you don't 
> have to worry about it.
> 
> For Extreme, are you referring to before or after they picked up Brocade?
> 
> There is MPLS available in a number of cheap software suites. Even Mikrotik 
> provides MPLS support. Whether it works or not, I can't tell you.
> 
> VyOS supports is too. Whether it works or not, I can't tell you.
> 
> But I think we are long past the days of "MPLS is expensive".
> 
> Mark.

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead?

[scott]

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  wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor  
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

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead?

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/15/22 21:16, Raymond Burkholder wrote:



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).


Hasn't the world moved on to EVPN?

Mark.

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/15/22 19:22, 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.


Well, I don't entirely agree.

Pretty much all chips shipping now, either custom or merchant silicon, 
will support MPLS. Whether the vendor chooses to implement it in code or 
not is a whole other matter.


If you need MPLS, chances are you can afford it. If you don't, then you 
don't have to worry about it.


For Extreme, are you referring to before or after they picked up Brocade?

There is MPLS available in a number of cheap software suites. Even 
Mikrotik provides MPLS support. Whether it works or not, I can't tell you.


VyOS supports is too. Whether it works or not, I can't tell you.

But I think we are long past the days of "MPLS is expensive".

Mark.

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices -> MPLS instead?

[Raymond Burkholder]

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).





On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti  wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor  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

Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices

[Colton Conor]

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.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor  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

Re: Contact request AS 6453

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 15/01/2022 10:00, jim deleskie wrote:

Did you try:
https://www.peeringdb.com/net/437

peering-pol...@as6453.net
peering-...@as6453.net
ip...@tatacommunications.com

Regards,
Hank

Have you found anyone.  Not there any more but can probably still find 
someone for you.


-jim

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:11 AM Drew Weaver > wrote:


Does anyone have a contact for AS 6453 or are there any AS 6453
folks on list?

__ __

Seeing some routing trouble from their customers to the US.

__ __

Thanks,

-Drew

__ __

Re: Contact request AS 6453

[jim deleskie]

Have you found anyone.  Not there any more but can probably still find
someone for you.

-jim

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:11 AM Drew Weaver  wrote:

> Does anyone have a contact for AS 6453 or are there any AS 6453 folks on
> list?
>
>
>
> Seeing some routing trouble from their customers to the US.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Drew
>
>
>