re: was something like "ipv6 and the average user"

Kelly Setzer (
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:24:21 -0600 (CST)

>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:02:02 +0000 (GMT)
>Subject: Re: IPv6 and the "average user"
>> So, with 64MB or so, it's possbile to store fairly complete routing
>> tables for IPv4. The problem is the larger address blocks of IPv6.
>> (And also that some older routers can't use so many simms. This is not
>> really a problem for most Linux systems tho.)
>The killer isnt just routing tables. The killer is lookup time. Cisco stuff
>is supposed to flake out at about 40,000 routes from figures people have
>quoted. Hence the fact sprint and folks won't route smaller than a /19 and
>keep making noises abou going to /17.
>I would imagine some other kit can do better some worse, nevertheless trying
>to look up destinations from 40,000 choices at 100Mbits/second on 10 network
>ports, while recomputing the routing tables is NOT a trivial problem.

This does not pertain to linux-kernel in any way: Ascend has announced
the "GRF 400", an IP "switch" (huh? what? an IP switch?). It
promises hardware assisted route table lookups and traffic across all
interfaces at "wire speed". The specs mention that is can handle
150,000 routes.

For those of us that are bandwidth-hungry....this is definitely a
"woodening" article.

And since this is my first message to the list, I should say: Thanks