[149495] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Optimal IPv6 router
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glen Kent)
Mon Feb 6 09:49:27 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120206073426.GB8779@srv03.cluenet.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:18:29 +0530
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 09:07:57PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> OK, I'll bite. =A0What would qualify as a "native IPv6" router?
>
> Perhaps those which were designed with IPv4+IPv6 in mind from day 1,
> both in hardware and software - like Juniper/JUNOS. In contrast to other
Not just that.
I had meant that the HW is optimized for IPv6 and also as a side
effect does IPv4. This router could be designed assuming that you'll
have more IPv6 traffic to forward than IPv4.
> the gear where IPv6 was always an aftermath, which shows in both
> hardware (limits of performance, functionality and scaling) as well as
> software (every feature gets implemented twice, even if the feature
> itself is completely AFI-agnostic - see e.g. IOS/IOS-XE [can't comment
> on XR]).
Yes, thats what i had in mind.
One example that comes to my mind is that a few existing routers cant
do line rate routing for IPv6 traffic as long as the netmask is < 65.
Also routers have a limited TCAM size for storing routes with masks >
64. These routers were primarily designed for IPv4 and also support
IPv6.
I was wondering what we could optimize on if we only design an IPv6
router (assume an extreme case where it does not even support IPv4).
Glen
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>
