subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?

Ryan Malayter malayter at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 09:30:51 CST 2011


On Dec 28, 8:50 am, sth... at nethelp.no wrote:

> It might lead you to believe so - however, I believe this would be
> commercial suicide for hardware forwarding boxes because they would no
> longer be able to handle IPv6 at line rate for prefixes needing more
> than 64 bit lookups. It would also be an easy way to DoS such boxes...

That's just what I'm arguing here: no vendor info I've seen positively
says they *can* handle line-rate with longer IPv6 prefixes. The other
information available leads one to believe that all the published
specs are based on /64 prefixes.

Even a third-party test reports don't mention IPv6 or prefix length at
all:
http://www.aristanetworks.com/media/system/pdf/LippisTestReportMay2011.pdf

> Cisco actually has published quite a bit of info, e.g.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/prod...
>
> "Delivering scalable forwarding Performance: up to 400 Mpps IPv4 and
> 200 Mpps IPv6 with dCEF"
>
> They have also published EANTC tests which include IPv6 forwarding rates.

Except nowhere in there is the prefix length for the test indicated,
and the exact halving of forwarding rate for IPv6 leads one to believe
that there are two TCAM lookups for IPv6 (hence 64-bit prefix lookups)
versus one for IPv4.

For example, what is the forwarding rate for IPv6 when the tables are
filled with /124 IPv6 routes that differ only in the last 60 bits?

Even then EANTC test results you reference make no mention of the
prefix length for IPv4 or IPv6, or even the number of routes in the
lookup table during the testing:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/prod_white_paper0900aecd800c958a.pdf




More information about the NANOG mailing list