nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:46:48 +0100 (CET)
IPv6 CEF appears to be functioning normally for prefixes longer than 64-bit on my 720(s). I'm not seeing evidence of unexpected punting. The CPU utilization of the software process that would handle IPv6 being punted to software, "IPv6 Input", is at a steady %0.00 average (with spikes up to 0.02%). So there would seem to be at least one major platform that is OK.
And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where there is no concept of "punt a packet to software to perform a forwarding decision". The packet is either forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes > 64 bit are handled like any other IPv6 prefixes, i.e. they are forwarded in hardware. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no
Current thread:
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?, (continued)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Leo Bicknell (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ryan Malayter (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ryan Malayter (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Mark Tinka (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Saku Ytti (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Mark Tinka (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 29)