IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers

Karl Auer kauer at biplane.com.au
Wed Jan 30 11:06:12 UTC 2013

On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:33 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 30/01/2013 10:24, Karl Auer wrote:
> > Hm. If you have 100 VMs per host and 48 hosts on a switch, methinks you
> > should probably invest in the finest switches money can buy, and they
> > will have no problem tracking that state.
> What make+model switches would these be, did you say?

Oooh, you've got me there :-)

My point was just that the additional state did not, as described, seem
to me like such a massive amount more than that presently required. I
thus doubted that lack of state capacity in switches would be a real (as
distinct from a possible, likely or supposed) problem. If there *are*
actual problems, then obviously I stand corrected.

I don't mind being corrected, but I would be sad to see this aspect of
IPv6 go by the board. I suspect that even if it *is* an actual problem
now, it will turn out to be a transient one - switches will get more
capacity and will just deal with it. Even if low-end switches don't, I
expect that high-end switches will.

But if it turns out that even the high end of the market doesn't care
about traffic reduction but does want cheaper switches, then I guess
we'll see a lot of non-MLD-snooping switches.

Regards, K.

Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)

GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017

More information about the NANOG mailing list