On 20.2.2013 16:19, "Seth Mattinen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/20/13 6:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Mack McBride wrote: >> >>> At 768k you are effectively limiting your IPv6 table to 128k (you >>> can't really go more than that if you expect to use IPv6). I recommend >>> a 640k/192k split. >> >> Well, I believe IPv4 will hit 640k before IPv6 will hit 128k, so I'd >> recommend 768k/128k instead. >> > >That's what I think too, unless there are too many unchecked idiots that >decide to deaggregate their /30-32 into /48s. +1 on this one, this is our configuration as well. Kind regards, Sibbi _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
