morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Sun Apr 4 19:10:49 CDT 2010
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six years is long time.
<cough>4948</cough> (not 6yrs old, but... still forwards v6 in the
> Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>>>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>>>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
>>> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
>>also, for the record, there are parts of this ipv6 internet thing
>>where ... doing things in the slowpath is no longer feasible.
More information about the NANOG