Did you read the part about DC switches in general and Nexus 5500 in particular?
> -----Original Message----- > From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:27 AM > To: Ivan Pepelnjak > Cc: Andrew McGregor; Brian E Carpenter; v6...@ietf.org WG; ipv6@ietf.org; > manning bill > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft- > jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > > On 6/3/13 7:11 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: > > Read the recent "p2p /64" thread of ipv6-ops cluenet mailing list > You are refering to: > > http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2013-June/thread.html > > I stand by my statement... > > The inability to properly apply ACLs on the 3750 for routes longer than > /64 on some 3750 variants is a problem. A route is not an ACL. Using an > mock modifed eui64 address for your loopback address so that your control- > plane acl works properly seems asine I will give you that. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750/software/release > /12.2_55_se/commmand/reference/cli2.html#wp11682185 > > cam tables are designed or partitioned in general to favor ipv4 route > count over ipv6, while route table size is impacted that does not affect > throughput. > > > ===== > > Mistyped and autocorrected on a clunky virtual keyboard > > > > On 4. jun. 2013, at 01:08, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > > > >> On 6/3/13 3:59 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >>> 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. > >> please cite specifics. I have no devices in the field that have such a > limitation. > >> > >> joel > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> _______________________________________________ > >> v6ops mailing list > >> v6...@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
