Owen DeLong wrote:
Again, wrong. The number is growing exponentially primarily
because of the fragmentation that comes from recycling
addresses.
Nope… It occurs when (e.g. HP or MIT or AMPR) sell off pieces of a
class A as smaller prefixes to various other purchasers.
That, by no means, is
When considering the IPv6 product, I would suggest you read
USGv6-Revision-1 (1) to define the specification you need for the product.
Then go to the USGv6 Registry (2), select the features and read the
Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDOC) to ensure that the product meets
your requirements.
> On Nov 23, 2021, at 12:28 AM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially, not
>>> because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of multihoming.
>> Again, wrong. The number is growing exponentially primarily
Owen DeLong wrote:
The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially, not
because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of
multihoming.
Again, wrong. The number is growing exponentially primarily because
of the fragmentation that comes from recycling addresses.
Such
> On Nov 22, 2021, at 02:45 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> > Not everyone are Apple, "hp"[0] or MIT, where initial
> > allocation still is mostly sufficient.
>
> The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially,
> not because of increase of the number of
Mans Nilsson wrote:
> Not everyone are Apple, "hp"[0] or MIT, where initial
> allocation still is mostly sufficient.
The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially,
not because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of
multihoming.
As such, if entities requiring IPv4
> On Nov 21, 2021, at 09:04 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Uh, no. It is so because on average IPv4 is so fragmented that most
>> providers of any size are advertising 8+ prefixes compared to a more
>> realistic IPv6 average of 1-3.
>
> Mergers of entities having an
Subject: Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Date: Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at
02:04:55AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> Mergers of entities having an IP address range is a primary reason
> of entities having multiple address ranges. As IPv6 was
> develo
Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no. It is so because on average IPv4 is so fragmented that most
providers of any size are advertising 8+ prefixes compared to a more
realistic IPv6 average of 1-3.
Mergers of entities having an IP address range is a primary reason
of entities having multiple address
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 09:38, John Lee wrote:
> Cisco and Juniper routers have had v6 functionality for over 10 years.
> Lucent/Nokia, and others. Check UNL list at
> https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 for v6 compliant routers and switches.
People who work with network devices directly
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 00:41 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Speed of router depends on degree of parallelism.
>
> So, for quick routing table lookup, if you provide 128bit TCAM
> for IPv6 in addition to 32bit TCAM for IPv4, speed is mostly
> same, though, for each entry, TCAM for IPv6 costs 4
Speed of router depends on degree of parallelism.
So, for quick routing table lookup, if you provide 128bit TCAM
for IPv6 in addition to 32bit TCAM for IPv4, speed is mostly
same, though, for each entry, TCAM for IPv6 costs 4 times more
and consumes 4 times more power than that for IPv4.
Cisco and Juniper routers have had v6 functionality for over 10 years.
Lucent/Nokia, and others. Check UNL list at
https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 for v6 compliant routers and
switches.
John Lee
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:48 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>Both have sprawling product lines though even with fsvo big iron. It
>would be nice to hear that they can build out big networks, but given
>the use of ipv6 in mobile I assume they can. I wonder what the situation
>is for enterprise which doesn't have any
On 11/19/21 2:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does
big iron support ipv6 these days?
My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does:
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does
>big iron support ipv6 these days?
My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does:
16 matches
Mail list logo
