[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

[Robert Raszuk]

>
> I don't like to conflate these two; SR is great, SRv6 is horrible
> abomination. SR is what MPLS should have been day1, but it probably
> was easier to market LDP than to say 'we need to change all IGP
> protocols'.
>

Nope that was not the main reason.

Main reason was the belief that labels MUST be locally significant - and
not domain wide unique. Just look at Juniper's SRm6 or now SRH ... they
keep this notion of locally significant SIDs. It is deep in their DNA ...
still.

We argued about it a lot in cisco back in TDP days - and we lost.

- - -

Now to your runt that MPLS is great because of exact match perhaps you
missed it but number of solutions on the table (including RbR[**] I
recently proposed) use exact match 4B locator based lookup in the v6
packets to get from segment end to segment end.

On the other hand your comments about greatness of MPLS ... simplified data
plane and depending on the hardware difference in jitter (in sub ms ranges
- if that even matters) comes up with a lot of control plane complexity
when you want to build a network across all continents, yet keep it scoped
from IGP to areas or levels. No summarization in MPLS in FECs is something
we should not sweep under the carpet.

Best,
R.

[**] -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ef05LFFij45mm8fM8hLFXknxoIA/