RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt vs RFC4443

[Miya Kohno <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pekka,

>> It seems that the point is not really that of reduced performance,
but
>> rather that complying with this requirement would require a change in
>> the silicon?
>>
>> If that's the case (i.e., no real performance implications), then it
>> looks like an appropriate fix for this issue. -- which does not
>> necessarily argue against /127 prefixes, as there are other reasons
for
>> using them (or, put another way, let's not correlate *this* with the
>> fight over /127 prefixes).
>
>This issue was initially brought up by Google IPv6 presentation, 
>proxying Juniper's statements, so it would probably best if either of 
>them could clarify.

There is not a straight-forward answer. It can be done without
performance degradation if designed so (e.g. uRPF,
filter-based-forwarding, etc.). In practice, everything costs something
and there are various trade-offs. 

Miya