North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:10:39PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: > > > likewise, "FIB table growth" isn't yet a problem either - generally that > > just means "put in more SRAM" or "put in more TCAM space". > > > > IPv6 may change the equations around .. but we'll see .. > > IPv6 will someday account for as many IPv4 networks as would exist > then, and IPv6 prefixes are twice as large as IPv4 (64 bits prefix vs > 32 bits prefix+address, remainder 64 bits addresses on IPv6 are > strictly local), so despite a 3x cost increase (1 32 bit table for > IPv4, 2 for IPv6) on memory structures and 2x increase on lookup > engine(2 engines would be used for IPv6, one for IPv4), the same > techonology that can run IPv4 can do IPv6 at the same speed. As this > is not a usual demand today, even hardware routers limit the > forwarding table to the sum of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, and forward > IPv6 at half the rate of IPv4. s/64/128/ ...and total, complete, non-sense. please educate yourself more on reality of inet6 unicast forwarding before speculating. Thank you. James
|