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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aled Morris
aledm at qix.co.uk
Wed Jun 15 19:56:31 CEST 2016
On 15 June 2016 at 16:44, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote: > > The FIB penalty has the potential to be huge. > It's a shame there's not real interest in deploying a protocol like LISP that addresses the DFZ bloat problem. I know there are problems, it isn't a trivial deployment, but if the will was there, I'm sure challenges could be overcome. It would also allow providers to deploy IPv6 without having to have native IPv6 connectivity from their upstreams - as a dynamic tunnel protocol, LISP is better than a single tunnel to HE or whatever. Aled -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160615/f754530b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]