RE: Comments on draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-00

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 Jim.Bound@nokia.com wrote:

> > I wish the same could be said about IPv6 and routers. :(
> 
> Just as comment.  Actually doing this in hardware.  There is no extra cost
> except for the pipeline LA to Register has 12 more bits if you design a good
> RIB and FIB on your cpus.  Whether you use ASIC or NP and whether you use
> SRAM or CAM to get the dst addr.  The cost now that makes these 12 bits
> insignificant is the tunnels we must now use and looking into the
> tcp/udp/sctp data portion of the packet.  Thus far the next hdr is not an
> issue unless your in the hop-by-hop path or a Mobile Home Agent (in case of
> finding the dst option).  And if we use the flow label e2e the lookups for
> all processing will get better.


For new hardware this is true. IMHO there is no excuse for shipping
*hardware* today that isn't ready for IPv6 (software for that hardware is
another matter). 

My point was that I can upgrade the transports on the host's that I have
today at very little cost. I have 'Layer 3 switches' that I need to throw
out to carry IPv6 across my entire network, and unfortunatly very few
of the potential replacements *today* are being advertised as IPv6 
future-proof. Instead, their vendors offer that IPv6 is needless: NAT will
save the world! *gag* *puke*
 
If anyone here wants to send me marketing crap on their high-density, low
cost per port, IPv6 capable, routing gear: send me an email *off list* I'd
be glad to see it. :)