Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system

[James <james () towardex com>]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:10:39PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
> > likewise, "FIB table growth" isn't yet a problem either - generally that
> > just means "put in more SRAM" or "put in more TCAM space".
>
>
> > IPv6 may change the equations around .. but we'll see ..
>
> IPv6 will someday account for as many IPv4 networks as would exist
> then, and IPv6 prefixes are twice as large as IPv4 (64 bits prefix vs
> 32 bits prefix+address, remainder 64 bits addresses on IPv6 are
> strictly local), so despite a 3x cost increase (1 32 bit table for
> IPv4, 2 for IPv6) on memory structures and 2x increase on lookup
> engine(2 engines would be used for IPv6, one for IPv4), the same
> techonology that can run IPv4 can do IPv6 at the same speed. As this
> is not a usual demand today, even hardware routers limit the
> forwarding table to the sum of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, and forward
> IPv6 at half the rate of IPv4.

s/64/128/

...and total, complete, non-sense.  please educate yourself more on reality
of inet6 unicast forwarding before speculating.  Thank you.


James