On 3/10/12 2:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well. > > i don't see the problem with that. > > just get routers with enough memory... > > i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size > (let's say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's > 2012 after all ;) than for putting limits on the prefix sized announced > so "old junk" can still stay connected to the internet. > > let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1 > route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything > produced AFTER 2008 actually. > > stop buying crap without sufficient ram, or just scrap it and get new > stuff. (which you're going to have to do to efficiently route ipv6 > -anyway- at some point, as your old stuff, simply doesn't even > loadbalance trunked ethernet ports properly (layer 3 based) ;) >
I'm under the impression from your messages in this thread that you're unaware or unfamiliar with TCAM. ~Seth