[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
- Subject: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
- From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti)
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:10:15 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CALFTrnOPpJHhdpQLLZ5ZPWMQxoaWXcP=EBiFb-nT3FzHs2LAFA@mail.gmail.com> <CALFTrnMxYzuBqbVK=PMgaVF-sATCfWF4zrrOAZ7XUOgVu5MiKQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On (2011-12-29 16:56 +0800), Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2011 03:46:48 AM sthaug at nethelp.no
> wrote:
>
> > And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where
> > there is no concept of "punt a packet to software to
> > forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes > 64
>
> IOS XR-based systems operate the same way.
Of course this isn't strictly true, transit might be punted in either
platform for various reasons, IP(v6) options comes to mind, possibly too
many IPv6 extension headers (Cisco.com claims to punt in such instance,
JNPR/trio (imho incorrectly) just drops packet in hardware), glean/arp
resolve, multicast learning, probably many other reasons I can't think off.
--
++ytti