Hello Mike, OK, then we see both the same, just the interpretation is different. Lets see the details. <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <<a href="mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se">swmike@swm.pp.se</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Turchanyi Geza wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I realy would like to know what makes you so optimistic? While you think so that a few hundred thousands more routes doesn!t really matter? Which kind of routers/line cards could support this at wire speed? Any summary of convergence issues in large scale network? </blockquote> As far as I know, Cisco 7600 with XL PFC, Juniper MX, Cisco ASR 9k, CRS etc, all handle 1M or more routes, or at least a mix of 0.5M IPv4 and 0.25k IPv6 routes. I don't see why number of IPv6 routes would converge a lot slower than number of IPv4 routes. <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Am I missed some new technology that is already implemented allmost everywhere? </blockquote></blockquote><div> So the hardwired limit of 0.5M IPv4 routes and 0.25k IPv6 does not allow a few hundred thousands more IPv6 routes at all (not even would allow an 0.25M IPv6 limit) -- and speed of processing is an other issue... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> </blockquote> Prefix independent convergence, ie BGP prefix points to loopback which points to outgoing interface. When you need to converge your IGP you just rewrite the loopback pointers. This doesn't help EBGP of course, but number of routes are increasing slower tham moores law, so as long as the router vendors implement RIB processing in modern hw (not PPC :P), RIB handling is fine. Still, a lot of platforms can only program approximately 10k prefixes per second into hw, so increasing number of prefixes by hundreds of thousands means tens of seconds of increased convergence times for EBGP. </blockquote> <div> Agreed. Convergence is an issue!!! </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> -- Mikael Abrahamsson � �email: <a href="mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se" target="_blank">swmike@swm.pp.se</a> </blockquote></div> In summary: we do not have the technology which would allow a very liberal PI allocation policy, therefore a very liberal PI allocation policy is not possible now. Strict limits must be kept. Thanks, G�za