nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
From: ML <ml () kenweb org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:07:05 -0500
On 1/24/2011 4:20 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
That said. By not using the 64-bit boundary you may be sacrificing performance optimizations with today's processors that lack operations for values larger than 64-bits.
Is this an issue for any known vendors today?
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links, (continued)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Gary Buhrmaster (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Seth Mattinen (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Skeeve Stevens (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links ML (Jan 26)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Tim Durack (Jan 25)