[147985] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Thu Dec 29 04:11:11 2011
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:10:15 +0200
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201112291656.47253.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On (2011-12-29 16:56 +0800), Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2011 03:46:48 AM sthaug@nethelp.no
> wrote:
>
> > And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where
> > there is no concept of "punt a packet to software to
> > forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes > 64
>
> IOS XR-based systems operate the same way.
Of course this isn't strictly true, transit might be punted in either
platform for various reasons, IP(v6) options comes to mind, possibly too
many IPv6 extension headers (Cisco.com claims to punt in such instance,
JNPR/trio (imho incorrectly) just drops packet in hardware), glean/arp
resolve, multicast learning, probably many other reasons I can't think off.
--
++ytti
