Not his fault. Marketers are deliberately vague on what SD-WAN is, because it’s nothing more than a meaningless marketing term.
Kinda disagree with this one…I have deployed Velocloud sdwan across different branches. We have seen significant improvement in user experience post deployments. We have metrics for user experience through DX apps and appneta for before and after, the numbers don’t lie
Can I ask which sd-wan vendor you went with?
Seems everyone just kind of assumes today you are running MP-BGP to enable different service deliveries over MPLS… But for each of those a separate NLRI must be also included.
It really isn’t, and I’d suggest you don’t really understand what SD-WAN is doing if you think it’s only a marketing term.
But you are also quite wrong here. LDP plays absolutely no part in label allocation for VPNv4 prefixes.
Which part do you disagree with?
We went with ciscos viptela product for our main sites (call centers,data centers,aws). Then for our branches we went with meraki. Mostly for the auto vpn and zero config features. Then we have the two sdwan clouds peer at certain sites
what’s the RFC for SD-WAN then?
Oh man, if you think a one-liner means you know what something is, you’re even stupider than I thought you were previously.
Also, you’re a right lazy idiot if you can’t find an RFC on the internet, so I have no idea why you’d even post something that stupid without looking.
BGP. Here let me ask you a simple question: is running LDP necessary to run VPNv4 successfully?
Do you get off on being a cunt?
Funny, the guy being an asshole blocks anyone who calls him out.
The Adj-RIB-Out along with all other attributes for the prefixes being advertised… This label is likewise signaled to the forwarding table.
Since you didn’t feel like answering my question I guess I’ll do it… the answer is no, LDP is not at all a dependency to run VPNv4 — there are other label distribution protocols you know? Is that a hint that perhaps LDP has nothing to do with label allocation for VPNv4 prefixes?
The distinction you are attempting to make is about to enter the territory of vendor-specific implementation, so I’ll not complicate it and just answer that “BGP Tables” contain label bindings for VPNv4 prefixes. If you’re trying to make a point here then get on with it.
Now I’m the one who claimed that your statement of “label information that LDP generates for VPNv4 prefixes” is wrong. Without anymore pedantic questions, do you have anything at all to back up that assertion? The best I can do to disprove this negative is remind you that VPNv4 can operate just fine without LDP, and thus it should follow that LDP can’t be responsible for label allocation on VPNv4 prefixes. So what you got?
OK guy, you convinced me, I’ll add “what is a straw man argument” to the growing list of topics you don’t quite “get”. I had hoped that after asking several times, that you’d finally share with us how exactly “LDP generates labels for VPNv4 prefixes”… a passage from an RFC, documentation, anything at all really. But alas, you are a master of misdirection.
Your confidence alone is compelling, but the Dunning-Kruger effect is common in this profession, and it seems to be in full force here. If you eventually feel inclined to explain your original assertion, I’d happily discuss further… otherwise cheers.