This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
gvandeve at cisco.com
Thu May 26 18:56:59 CEST 2011
Inline: GV> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniele Orlandi Sent: 26 May 2011 18:34 To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links On Thursday 26 May 2011 10:07:39 Jasper Jans wrote: > Can anyone give me some real world experience with IPv6 numbering on P2P > links in their network? I've not yet been able to figure out another aspect of prefixes longer than /64. How are TCAMs in hardware routers and routing lookup code going to handle matches longer than 64 bits? GV> it doesn't really matter as those are destinations that are normally not in the data-path, but just in the "testing path", so optimization doesn't really matter for these prefixes for the data-path services. Are ALL vendors putting all the 128 bits in the TCAMs or is there someone (or most?) with reduced match size that implies a second lookup? GV> oh.. I think there is more to it then just TCAM... what about route-convergence preferences etc... However in this case the TCAM is not a big practical issue I believe. Or is the CPU-based algorithm going to be slower if the match is greater than the native CPU word size? That, alone would justify avoiding having prefixes longer than a /64 in the FIB since it would mean reduced PPS throughput for those destinations. GV> important is that host/user stations are on /64 bit length prefixes, the point-2-point's don't really matter actually in that case as they are just transport path and not a routing destination. Is anyone with an insight view of actual lookup method able to enlighten me a bit? G/
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]