On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sam Hartman<hartmans-i...@mit.edu> wrote: >>>>>> "Shane" == Shane Amante <sh...@castlepoint.net> writes: > Shane> With respect to #2, SP's have been mandating that they only > Shane> buy v6- capable HW for the last /several years/ as part of > Shane> the normal growth/ replacement cycle of network equipment. > Shane> So, yes, this equipment should scale to support v6 traffic > Shane> at the same, (or nearly the same), rates as v4 traffic > Shane> today. > > I don't see how this follows at all. I can sell you a box that > supports V6 and that provides much lower performance for V6 than V4, > but that still meets your requirement of supporting V6. > > You may be trying to tell me that SP's are unwilling to buy such boxes > and explicitly want boxes where V6 and V4 performance is the same. If
an SP can't know a-priori what protocol traffic is using on a transit device (presuming it supports both popular protocols of course). So, the only viable answer for an SP today who has dual-stacked their network is to demand performance parity. (which I think all large sp's are doing, which is one of the reasons that large SP deployments of v6 aren't moving along at a pace that some folks want. There are still significant numbers of devices not capable of doing line-rate v6 forwarding.) -chris > that is what you are saying, it is very interesting, but it goes far > beyond simply saying that SPs are buying V6-supporting devices. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
