[67255] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Are SW upgrades needed in MPLS core networks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Fri Feb 6 14:10:55 2004
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:59:39 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rubens@email.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <079301c3ece0$86ffb400$020ba8c0@NOTEBOOK>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:39:09PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
>
> > > > > Even hardware with good IPv6 performance seems to forward at half
> the
> > > rate
> > > > > of IPv4/MPLS packets;
> > > >
> > > > we call that crappy hardware
> > >
> > > Based on such point of view, non-crappy hardware would be: (blank) and
> > > crappy hardware would be (blank), could you fill the blanks ?
> >
> > As with so many other situations, the blanks can be filled in with
> > "Juniper" and "Cisco", in that order.
>
> I don't get why Juniper and Cisco trie-lookup forwarding would differ in
> comparing IPv4 and IPv6; Juniper does a 8+1+1+1+1+... search until a leaf
> node is found, while Cisco does 16+8+8 (or something near it but still with
> 3 phases); for both architetures, IPv6 longer addresses implies walking more
> deeply into the tree in order to find where to route.
Uhh...... One trie lookup is fully supported in ASIC, the other is not.
> Just to be sure, my point here is not where the effective IPv6 performance
> suits one needs or not, but wether a router that can forward <amount> Mpps
> of IPv4/MPLS packets can also forward the same amount of IPv6 packets per
> second.
Personally I'd say the routing protocol functionality and stability is as
important if not more important. I don't see the point in implementing a
v6 network consisting of seperate 7206vxrs (to contain the ios crashes)
and tunnels, if you're going to bother with it at least do it native and
do it right.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
