| |||||||||||||
What's so bad about IPv6?What's so bad about IPv6?Posted Jan 26, 2011 16:08 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: What's so bad about IPv6? by hmh Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
Most everything that has been deployed since 2004 should have IPv6 support. Most people's network supports it even if they don't know it.
(Log in to post comments)
What's so bad about IPv6? Posted Jan 26, 2011 16:43 UTC (Wed) by mstefani (subscriber, #31644) [Link]
Should. How well is a different story.
Some devices will support it only "in software"; hitting the CPU on a busy network devices is basically "game over". Other devices support IPv6 only in a limited way, e.g. no VRF support for IPv6. Of course for those type of problems the network vendors are more than happy to sell you new hardware for $$$ with a questionable ROI. But for some features your network might rely upon all you will get back is a "IPv6 support will be added next year"...
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Posted Jan 26, 2011 17:36 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] No, they don't support it. It's easy, really: you claim that IPv6 is simpler to process and so it should provide performance boost. But let's check the facts up to 60 million packets per second (Mpps) of IPv4 unicast forwarding traffic and up to 30 Mpps of IPv6 unicast forwarding traffic Oops? Looks like simple and logical way to save half of equipment is to just disable IPv6 - and this is what ISPs are doing... It does not matter if hardware has support for IPv6 or not if it's disabled.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Posted Jan 26, 2011 19:06 UTC (Wed) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028) [Link]
Shrug line rate 10gbps software forwarded ipv6 in linux.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Posted Jan 26, 2011 21:40 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Markov generated text seeded with the iptables manpage?
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Posted Jan 27, 2011 13:51 UTC (Thu) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
Must be. It lacks everything, from content, to truth.
Being someone who has actually tried to do 10Gbps routing using Linux, I am well aware of its limitations. You need lots of tuning and the correct hardware to get high packets-per-second rates, and it gets nowhere close to the target 40Mpps. It really is useful only for large packets, or if you need nowhere near line-rate and don't care about DoS attacks with small packets.
One really needs hardware-assisted packet forwarding to do line-speed 10-gigabit routing at all packet sizes. Either that or a routing cluster, at which point TCO goes well above a proper 10Gbit Cisco/Juniper switch-router.
So, the question becomes: are there affordable, non-experimental hardware packet forwarding devices (preferably PCIe) that are compatible with Linux?
What's so bad about IPv6? Posted Jan 26, 2011 20:08 UTC (Wed) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
That is a blatant lie. There are many vendors that still have IPv6 in *roadmap* for several of their product families. I should know, we have several here and it is being an effective deterrent to switching to IPv6.
|
|||||||||||||