Mark Tinka wrote:
MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because
nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because
source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which
means the source hosts have the current most routing table at
destinations, which requires flat r
On 4/4/22 15:45, Masataka Ohta wrote:
MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because
nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because
source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which
means the source hosts have the current most routing table at
destination
The other question for this list I'd basically had was this:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6
> Please let me know if you feel that it should be possible to
> completely disable v4-via-v6 even on newer kernels, and whether you
> feel that v4-via-v6 should be disabl
Dave Taht wrote:
Are MPLS or SR too heavy a bat?
MPLS was not an option at the time. It might become one.
MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because
nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because
source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which
means
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/4/22 03:06, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4
> > over v6 feature I'm
> > playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm
> > critically dependent on
> > source sp
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hello Ohta-san
Hi,
it is hopeless.
If you look at it, LS - as OSPF and ISIS use it -
My team developed our own.
Hierarchical QoS Link Information Protocol (HQLIP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohta-ric-hqlip/
which support 256
On 4/4/22 03:06, Dave Taht wrote:
I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4
over v6 feature I'm
playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm
critically dependent on
source specific routing, also, so I am hoping there's an isis or ospf
that can do
w
On 4/4/22 02:55, Dave Taht wrote:
it was how hard adding source specific routing to isis turned out to
be that turned me.
At the time I needed simple means to get ipv6 working on multiple
consumer uplinks.
I suppose the presence of MPLS (and SR) for many operators is probably
why this use-
ot the ill-fated U-Turn protocol, that
one had its own issues.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
> Masataka Ohta
> Sent: dimanche 3 avril 2022 15:46
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols
>
> Dave Taht
r usual vendor hardware though.
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave
> Taht
> Sent: lundi 4 avril 2022 2:56
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:04 PM
I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4
over v6 feature I'm
playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm
critically dependent on
source specific routing, also, so I am hoping there's an isis or ospf
that can do
what I need, or now that I have more rout
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/3/22 13:55, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had
> > kind
> > of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP
> > for meshy networks because I felt li
On 4/3/22 13:55, Dave Taht wrote:
Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had kind
of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP
for meshy networks because I felt link-state had gone as far as it
could and somehow unifying BGP DV with an
Dave Taht wrote:
Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had kind
of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP
for meshy networks because I felt link-state had gone as far as it
could and somehow unifying BGP DV with an IGP that was also D
14 matches
Mail list logo
