nanog mailing list archives
Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying
From: j k <jsklein () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:48:14 -0500
When considering the IPv6 product, I would suggest you read USGv6-Revision-1 (1) to define the specification you need for the product. Then go to the USGv6 Registry (2), select the features and read the Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDOC) to ensure that the product meets your requirements. Do this prior to having the discussion with the vendor sales. Also, ask for documents which provide details on performance and security testing. It will save you hours of troubleshooting problems and patching vulnerability. Lessons learned from implementing IPv6 products. (1) https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/usgv6-program/usgv6-revision-1 (2) https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 Joe Klein "inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1) "*I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." -- *Wayne Gretzky "I never lose. I either win or learn" - Nelson Mandela On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 2:36 AM John Lee <jllee9753 () gmail com> wrote:
Cisco and Juniper routers have had v6 functionality for over 10 years. Lucent/Nokia, and others. Check UNL list at https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 for v6 compliant routers and switches. John Lee On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:48 PM John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:It appears that Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> said:And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does big iron support ipv6 these days?My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-overview/topics/concept/ipv6-technology-overview.html As does Cisco: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-9600-series-switches/nb-06-cat9600-ser-sup-eng-data-sheet-cte-en.pdf R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast, (continued)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Lee (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Saku Ytti (Nov 20)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying j k (Nov 23)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta (Nov 21)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Måns Nilsson (Nov 21)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta (Nov 22)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 22)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta (Nov 23)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 23)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta (Nov 23)
- multihoming Dave Taht (Nov 23)