On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had > laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due > to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six > years is long time.
<cough>4948</cough> (not 6yrs old, but... still forwards v6 in the slow-path, weee!) > Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >>> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote: >> >>>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6 >>>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath. >>> >>> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 has >>> no impact on stuff like BGP convergence. >> >>also, for the record, there are parts of this ipv6 internet thing >>where ... doing things in the slowpath is no longer feasible. >> >
