IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix

Rick Casarez <rick.casarez@gmail.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rick.casarez@gmail.com>
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 EB9661A87BE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 C3CZpge3f-d1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D46F71A86FA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l13so3760325iga.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=080SBbONHwoqiBJvWX73zVL4YRwZvYMRGB3ymDk/RGI=; b=buRN7xBQbRmljEmiLl9YnS0gc6KxCQqui0hOv+6R8+9dvL4nRZslHh17402tyPqR4L xAZ0tS4XpAcptiEmG2lZR6DDcLMrGy3gsuTTXVCt6h9U0DPsnvjW9v+jDQ6ckLEyh6VR G2L2HF58EEVfyRfR1A+srCuUFTUrqQAPbd8sTzt5yumnhNiYL87CmU/AfLMApEt0DBYX xzslTJEY7X5moRWFSNKgFMwCoshFAxk6LGBjdHLKT7YpXFkHGbBCkwrYL42dt4IyHud4 hhrHbvhc5i77QbY8nXgiZsi+z+1OIgfXzKTYwQnmhzrJiZa91ymRHYXh1yRH670tXvHM VYEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.106.203 with SMTP id a11mr8625197icp.2.1423749401076; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.69.168 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:56:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54DB5ABA.7090703@foobar.org>
References: <201502111247.t1BCl1Fu003450@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <54DB5ABA.7090703@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:56:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGWMUT4aiKZOiTACq+ftw1CtTTztw0WResN0ywdFNdCP2aFp8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rick Casarez <rick.casarez@gmail.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf304352c84ced48050ee47db7"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/YnNNBy6G2FS6NoxdiOTJOULzMUs>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:56:44 -0000

I know I have run into vendors who have optimized their data structures for
/64 but not for anything smaller. We are already pushing them on that front
to do it for all prefix-lengths.

I support this document.

-------------------
Cheers, Rick

Experiences not things.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 12:47, fred@cisco.com wrote:
> > A new draft has been posted, at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix. Please take a
> look at it and comment.
>
> I agree with the sentiment of this document but as an observation,
> unrestricted longest-prefix-match lookup tends to be circumvented by
> vendors in order to provide increased forwarding table capacity.  There's a
> curious practical example in the "Cisco Nexus 5000 Series Configuration
> Limits" document:
>
> Dynamic routes          16,384 (includes IPv4 and IPv6 routes)
> V6 LPM routes           128 entries
>
> It would be interesting to see why the difference between v4 and v6 lpm
> lookup entries is greater than 4x.
>
> Otherwise, I support this doc.
>
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email