nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 19:48:48 -0700
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: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!)Yes it does. and the slow path is sloooooooooow on the that switch. but switches and routers did and do come in colors other than blue.
but, but, but.. then it won't match! and seriously, I can't have another run in with the fashion police. In actual seriousness, my point is that plenty of this sort of gear is in the network, and will be for a time. It's sort of inexcusable that vendors put out gear 5 years ago that didn't do v6 in the fast path... oh well. -chris
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: legacy /8 James Hess (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)