On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Daniel Roesen <d...@cluenet.de> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 09:07:57PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> OK, I'll bite. What would qualify as a "native IPv6" router? > > Perhaps those which were designed with IPv4+IPv6 in mind from day 1, > both in hardware and software - like Juniper/JUNOS. In contrast to other
Not just that. I had meant that the HW is optimized for IPv6 and also as a side effect does IPv4. This router could be designed assuming that you'll have more IPv6 traffic to forward than IPv4. > the gear where IPv6 was always an aftermath, which shows in both > hardware (limits of performance, functionality and scaling) as well as > software (every feature gets implemented twice, even if the feature > itself is completely AFI-agnostic - see e.g. IOS/IOS-XE [can't comment > on XR]). Yes, thats what i had in mind. One example that comes to my mind is that a few existing routers cant do line rate routing for IPv6 traffic as long as the netmask is < 65. Also routers have a limited TCAM size for storing routes with masks > 64. These routers were primarily designed for IPv4 and also support IPv6. I was wondering what we could optimize on if we only design an IPv6 router (assume an extreme case where it does not even support IPv4). Glen > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- > CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 >
