[153541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Auer)
Fri Jun 8 00:31:51 2012
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMbSiYBd-SNPYW6jS_AW37jKyWBrXQ2QRXEJ44CeEo53TV4iWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:31:09 +1000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 03:08 +0000, Dave Hart wrote:
> networks. With IPv4, ARP presents not only a network capacity issue,
> but also a host capacity issue as every node expends software
> resources processing every broadcast ARP. With ND, only a tiny
> fraction of hosts expend any software capacity processing a given
> multicast packet, thanks to ethernet NIC's hardware filtering of
> received multicasts -- with or without multicast-snooping switches.
So we are actually sort of agreeing. That's a relief :-) However,
preventing packets getting to the NICs *at all* is a pretty big win,
because even if a clever NIC can prevent a host CPU being interrupted,
the packet was still wasting bandwidth on the path to the NIC.
I would go so far as to say that MLD snooping makes the NIC side of
things almost irrelevant. Almost :-)
Regards, K.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
