[145180] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Sep 30 10:10:03 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110930100257.GA30922@pob.ytti.fi>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:09:54 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> On (2011-09-30 01:55 -0400), Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> when will vendors learn that punting to the RE/RP/smarts for packets
>> in the fastpath is ... not just 'unwise' but wholesale stupid? :(
>
> What to do with IP options or IPv6 hop-by-hop options? What to do with IPv6
> packets which contain options which push TCP/UDP past your lookup view?
a switch to be used that stops processing this sort of thing, in an
internet core (and honestly most enterprise core) routers, all I want
is packet-in/packet-out. there's no need for anything else, stop
trying to send line-rate packets to the cpu.
> Punting transit is not only not stupid but also necessary in hardware routers
> which cannot handle every case in hardware (which is all routers).
no. all you need is a default 'do not process these, just fwd them'
switch. (or, a switch at any rate that the operator can select one way
or the other, they SHOULD know what is the best for their deployment).
> There should just be adequate way to limit these and there should exist default
> limitation.
I really think zero limit is the right limit... (for a large number of
deployments)
