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/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg] Re: IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Re: IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Tue May 25 16:36:02 CEST 2010
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote: > In terms of router processing efficiency are there specific prefix > lengths that are "better" health-wise, e.g. should we encourage routes > on 4/8/16-bit boundaries? Surely not. I can remember lingo in the IPv6 spec that specifically advised vendors to NOT make any assumptions about specific prefix lengths and base performance optimizations on those. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Re: IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]