[147996] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Dec 29 06:41:09 2011
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:39:27 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20111229091015.GA19931@pob.ytti.fi>
Reply-To: mtinka@globaltransit.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart6768721.NAxMi9tQND
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 05:10:15 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Of course this isn't strictly true,...
Of course, not "strictly".=20
What I meant was the CRS and ASR9000 don't operate like the=20
6500/7600 and other Cisco switches that punted packets to=20
CPU if, for one reason or another, a bug or misconfiguration=20
caused said packets to be sent to the CPU for forwarding.
Mark.
--nextPart6768721.NAxMi9tQND
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=nDy/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart6768721.NAxMi9tQND--
