On 12/31/15 10:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 01/01/2016 06:04, Jared Mauch wrote: > ... >> The reason we (as an operator) can’t use BCP-38 is the vendor hardware can’t do it at line-rate and the performance hit is too much to sustain. > > That seems worth a bit more discussion. I'd always naively assumed that BCP38 was > scalable since all it appears to need is a prefix match, and routers are very > good at matching prefixes; it's just that they don't normally match the source > prefix. Could some router-vendor person comment on this? Not all routers use ternary cams , and some that do employ them algorithmically, so it's not one and done in either case. if you have multiple depedant memory accesses associated with a match, those need to be serialized. If the maximum pps of your linecard drops by say 50% when you enable a feature that's a bit of a problem. > There's another issue here, though. BCP-38 and uRPF are also a potential cause of > connectivity problems: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host > > Brian > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature