That's completely true; many switch chips cannot route on longer than /64 prefixes, so attempting to do so starts to either heat up the software slow path, or consume ACL entries, or is simply not supported at all. While this is arguably a bug, it is also pretty much ubiquitous in the current generation of ethernet switches, which are the basis for the majority of routers.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill wrote: > > On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > >> On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: > >>> /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is > actually using. > >> Now *that* would cause a nice fragmented DFZ... > >> Sander > >> > > > > > > I'm going to inject a route. One route. why do you care if its a /9, > a /28, a /47, or a /121? > > I've heard tell that there are routers that are designed to handle > prefixes up to /64 efficiently but have a much harder time with > prefixes longer than that, as a reasonable engineering trade-off. > Not being a router designer, I don't know how true this is. > > Brian > > Its -one- route. > > That one route covers everything I'm going to use… and nothing I'm not. > > > > Is there a credible reason you want to be the vector of DDoS attacks, by > announcing dark space (by proxy aggregation)? > > Is that an operational liability you are willing to assume, just so you > can have "unfragmented" DFZ space? > > > > > > /bill > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
