IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 30 May 2014 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0D51A08F3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 07:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 SUZAveW0xT22 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 07:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FB231A08BD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 07:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.dyn.netability.ie (089-101-195154.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.154] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4UE9VP6070285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 May 2014 15:09:31 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host 089-101-195154.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.154] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.dyn.netability.ie
Message-ID: <5388911B.6020007@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:09:31 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <53888B90.4030509@foobar.org> <CAD6AjGRQ8+yC1iHY3noV4jcMPYTS_UjQx-E8XOiT=sXu1XxY6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRQ8+yC1iHY3noV4jcMPYTS_UjQx-E8XOiT=sXu1XxY6A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/U_N3kT-SCrn2vTG-JRptKhEGrZA
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:10:03 -0000

On 30/05/2014 14:53, Ca By wrote:
> Not my *new* gear. And not while running a full ipv4 table too.

tom specifically mentioned "1M being the best estimate ... with the
foreseeable improvements to current technology" but we already have this on
e.g. asr9000 typhoon cards.  Whether your particular boxes handle a 1m v6
fib is a different issue; the point is that the technology already exists
and given the small DFZ and (currently) linear growth rate, there is no
short / medium term fear here, and arguably no long term cause of concern
either.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email