|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Scalability issues in the Internet routing system
> One interesting note though is Pekka Savola's RFC3627: > "Even though having prefix length longer than /64 is forbidden by > [ADDRARCH] section 2.4 for non-000/3 unicast prefixes, using /127 > prefix length has gained a lot of operational popularity;" > > Are you arguing in the popularity sense ? Is RFC 3513 that apart from > reality ? An October 2005(this month) article I > found(http://www.usipv6.com/6sense/2005/oct/05.htm) says "Just as a > reminder, IPv6 uses a 128-bit address, and current IPv6 unicast > addressing uses the first 64 bits of this to actually describe the > location of a node, with the remaining 64 bits being used as an > endpoint identifier, not used for routing.", same as RFC 3513. I'd have to say that RFC 3513 is out of touch with reality here, yes. As far as I know current routers with hardware based forwarding look at the full 128 bits - certainly our Juniper routers do. > Limiting prefix length to 64 bits is a good thing; it would be even > better to guarantee that prefixes are always 32 bits or longer, in > order to use exact match search on the first 32 bits of the address, > and longest prefix match only on the remaining 32 bits of the prefix > identifier. Longer prefixes than 64 bits are already in use today (as an example, we use /124 for point to point links). It would be rather hard for a router vendor to introduce a new family of routers which completely broke backwards compatibility here, just in order to be "RFC 3513 compliant". Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected]
|