Hi Pekka, >> It seems that the point is not really that of reduced performance, but >> rather that complying with this requirement would require a change in >> the silicon? >> >> If that's the case (i.e., no real performance implications), then it >> looks like an appropriate fix for this issue. -- which does not >> necessarily argue against /127 prefixes, as there are other reasons for >> using them (or, put another way, let's not correlate *this* with the >> fight over /127 prefixes). > >This issue was initially brought up by Google IPv6 presentation, >proxying Juniper's statements, so it would probably best if either of >them could clarify.
There is not a straight-forward answer. It can be done without performance degradation if designed so (e.g. uRPF, filter-based-forwarding, etc.). In practice, everything costs something and there are various trade-offs. Miya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
