[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 23:47:47 CEST 2011
Turchanyi, It looks like we're circulating back to the same implementation-specific, 10-year-old-router-design arguments: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> > wrote: > > [..] > >> >> If IPv6 PI follows IPv4 PI, it's not going to blow up in the near future. >> >> My worry is long term, not short term. > How many IPv6 entries can be added if the total capacity of the line card is > 0.5M IPv4 routing entry? If the capacity of any packet forwarding engine cannot fit X+Y route entries, it cannot fit X+Y route entries. Gotcha. While I speak only for myself, I think I dare say that your voice of reservation towards the policy proposal has been heard on the list. Best, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]