Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:57 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Topology of the homenetwork in > draft-tsou-softwire-gwinit-6rd-01 > > On 11/9/10 9:08 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > > After the 6, 7 or 8 figure range in terms of number of sites > > > 6rd is enabling, the advantages vs. stateful methods > > > become quite apparent. > > > > I'm not sure that is exactly true. If there is concern for > > scaling, simply add more routers/servers the same as for 6rd. > I'm referring to the overall configuration, operation and > combined state > of the tunnels themselves regardless of the number of routers. Setting > up and maintaining hundreds or even thousands of configured, stateful, > tunnels is very different than hundreds of thousands, millions or tens > of millions. Alternatively, 6rd scales from small to large to very > large, at the cost of bits in the IPv6 address rather than individual > configuration and state. How expensive those bits are (or > should be) is > the subject of debate in various RIR forums. If we take for > granted they > are not free, then that needs to be considered when deciding which > tunneling option to deploy.
I'm not talking about configured tunnels; I'm talking about automatic ones with a point-to-multipoint model. And, I'm not talking about lots of state; I'm talking about minimal state (say O(10) - O(100) bytes) on a per-neighbor basis. That should provide fine scaling for a single router/server, and if further scaling is needed just add more router/servers. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > - Mark > > > Thanks - Fred > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
