[59050] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Thu Jun 12 21:41:17 2003
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>,
"David Barak" <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:40:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <010801c33142$044b1d60$01040b0a@force10networks.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > Vendor C's issues with v6 are a problem, but they're
> > not the only provider of core or edge gear...
> > Also, even though their forwarding mechanisa are not
> > completely functional, they do pass packets, so it'll
> > work, just not be optimized.
>
> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I don't think "not
> completely functional" is an adequate description. To me, that falls into
> the "not supported" category.
Clearly, you wouldn't deploy this box for a native-IPV6 app. I am guessing
Cisco is betting this box will have an upgrade available or be obsolete by
the time the majority of their customers want to pass 30Mpps IPV6.
Heck, a PC-IPV6 router will move more than 200Kpps, but I don't want to get
on that horse.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
