[75700] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jerry Pasker)
Sun Nov 21 00:34:26 2004
In-Reply-To: <g3pt277qsg.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:32:33 -0600
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Jerry Pasker <info@n-connect.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
>if the ipv6 routing table ever gets as large as the ipv4 routing table is
>today (late 2004 if you're going to quote me later), we'll be in deep doo.
>--
Paul Vixie
"Nut-uh!"
*WHEN* the ipv6 routing table gets as large as the ipv4 routing table
is today (late 2004, when you quote me later) it won't be a problem.
As a matter of fact, I would bet that Cisco , Juniper, and any other
edge/core router manufacturer are banking on this happening.
Today's routing table can be carried on older edge routers very
effectively (There are many 7500, 7200 series routers out there), and
I predict that this will continue to be the case for quite some time
(at least a few more years) This is not conducive to the business
model of Cisco Systems. *WHEN* the IPv6 routing table is the same
size that it is today, I seriously doubt that there will be any
problem with finding a CPU fast enough, RAM with a memory rate high
enough, or CPU to memory bandwidth wide enough to handle it.
And when that time comes: I promise that any Cisco sales person will
have at least more than a handful of routers to sell you that'll
handle the load just fine.
I'm Jerry Pasker, and I approved this message.
