[124769] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sun Apr 4 20:11:43 2010
In-Reply-To: <q2s75cb24521004041303ga93368ddte538e42242edcf94@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:10:49 -0700
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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. =A0It's not so usefyl=
due to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, s=
ix years is long time.
<cough>4948</cough> (not 6yrs old, but... still forwards v6 in the
slow-path, weee!)
> Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>>
>>>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>>>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
>>>
>>> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 =
has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
>>
>>also, for the record, there are parts of this ipv6 internet thing
>>where ... doing things in the slowpath is no longer feasible.
>>
>
