It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with RFC4443. But this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It is difficult to say though if some smaller routers could be impacted.
Another problem with RFC4443 is that it is breaking some application. There could be cases where packet needs to be sent back onto point-to-point links from which they were received. For example, an LER (Label Edge Router) could just forward the packet solely based on its label without IP resolution. In this case, if the destination was the LER's egress interface, then the downstream router would do an IP lookup and sent back the packet to its interface (it could be a ping to the LSR egress interface for example). /Olivier > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 4:29 AM > To: Jeroen Massar > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ping-pong phenomenon with p2p links & /127 prefixes > [...] > > But I'm still interested in knowing what's the downside of the fix in > RFC 4443 that I cited in my original post. Does it really kill > performance? > > Thanks! > > Kind regards, > -- > Fernando Gont > e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
