Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 13 March 2014 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED381A06EE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJzQNfEMkSlT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1201A0924 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so614330wgh.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rl2oQ3t1JHeOkdsGwQKjuii36R4qKb0CI3+9efrmxJ4=; b=qumv4WWuZFApzdDsoRIx4k4kUDjcqs1wASCvD25nu1XkgN4korAUXZ9liiIzqbeu6T gV+EWuL0zXJPi9O7tmBXKmFnnkdJL5HwZ3F0Hu9bB0NjGgnFbUvxAVN+CAPYljGV/awY fsqwi6cPhcZa4viOGp0IT8ruooMAzcKA1UzVZQ0Ysigqnsa2cEEf5s4qMJGV9H4wAFC6 KA6jSpcop806zmxiP2s+BwaV4eJJ1qQMV6Eci+qBjrJGpQTiYLlzX3jadMTCIzY4RZvm Qeqv0C54SZuQCIF6si8U7Mf9vFLlmwi3XaXCjFnoKaijht3fH0FfpXgisDeGTIxkjqgS C4eA==
X-Received: by 10.180.94.196 with SMTP id de4mr831900wib.16.1394704044233; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (cpc8-mort6-2-0-cust102.croy.cable.virginm.net. [82.43.108.103]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm4188490wjr.22.2014.03.13.02.47.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53217EB1.308@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:47:29 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01.txt]
References: <52F2DC55.5070200@gmail.com> <CAFU7BATyuEoK_TEqAXqz2ONvuO9P0y45SpJ-q7DHsmF4pBaezg@mail.gmail.com> <531816D9.4050200@fud.no> <CAFU7BASks087R1NgU=ojvBYqTpwm9ukwEp_+4z5AZ6L-phTkzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASks087R1NgU=ojvBYqTpwm9ukwEp_+4z5AZ6L-phTkzA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eTeAOOsh2TAVUGhyX9Oi2_HvNhQ
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:47:33 -0000

OK, s/unconfirmed assertions/reports/ in the next version.

Regards
   Brian

On 12/03/2014 22:37, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>> * Jen Linkova
>>
>>> I have a comment on section 5.2 which says
>>>
>>> 'There have been unconfirmed assertions that some routers have a
>>>    performance drop-off for prefixes longer than /64, due to design
>>>    issues.'
>>>
>>> I can confirm that there *are* network devices which have issues with
>>> prefixes longer than /64 (such as, for example, seriously limiting
>>> number of such prefixes being installed in FIB etc).
>> Your statement looks very much like an unconfirmed assertion to me...
>>
>> Could you be more specific? Which vendors, products, software versions,
>> have what kind of issue(s) specifically with prefixes >/64, exactly?
> 
> 
> Juniper PTX has some h/w limitation so they initially could not
> install /65 - /126 into FIB. Currently it is possible but for limited
> number of routes.
> 
> AFAIR some other cases were mentioned in ipv6-ops@ mailing list while ago
> (in the  "point-to-point /64" thread:
> http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2013-June/008937.html).
> 
> On WG session someone else mentioned issues with prefixes longer than
> /64 - but I cannot recall who was it..;(
> 
>