On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:11 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
>> So where's the limit for ND and prefix length on today's implementations and
>> platforms?
>
> Todays L3 switches typically have an ND/ARP table size limitations in the
> 1-4k entry range.
>
In your letter dated Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:47:32 +0200 you wrote:
>But EUI-48 itself has a not-very-well-published sub-structure of a
>"manufacturer's IEEE-assigned company_id" and a "manufacturer-selected
>extension identifier"
>
>What if SLAAC was (temporarily) redefined to build EUI-64 identifie
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Ray Hunter wrote:
So where's the limit for ND and prefix length on today's implementations
and platforms?
Todays L3 switches typically have an ND/ARP table size limitations in the
1-4k entry range.
What if SLAAC was limited to using 20 bits or even just 16 bits of MAC
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Ray Hunter:
Are 2^24 interface identifiers small enough that every implementation
could simply provide enough resources (for ND) to cope with all
addresses being in play simultaneously?
You'd need per-interface and per-VLAN tables. I don't think that's
feasi
* Ray Hunter:
> Are 2^24 interface identifiers small enough that every implementation
> could simply provide enough resources (for ND) to cope with all
> addresses being in play simultaneously?
You'd need per-interface and per-VLAN tables. I don't think that's
feasible.
--
Florian Weimer
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:50:16 -0400
From: Jared Mauch
To: Philip Homburg
Cc:ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: /64 ND DoS
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I think this needs to be refined, hence the feedback process via the community here. I
think sending to all-rout
