nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:10:49 -0700
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six years is long time.
<cough>4948</cough> (not 6yrs old, but... still forwards v6 in the slow-path, weee!)
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6 traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.also, for the record, there are parts of this ipv6 internet thing where ... doing things in the slowpath is no longer feasible.
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Zaid Ali (Apr 04)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Tore Anderson (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 sthaug (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Daniel Roesen (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Franck Martin (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)
- Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) David Conrad (Apr 09)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)