[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Michel Py]

> Michael Dillon wrote:
> Yes, speed wins. And router vendors have introduced
> more and more complex designs over time in order to
> get higher speed. This includes optimizing software
> algorithms and shifting functions into hardware such
> as FPGAs and TCAMs.

Yes, but never at the expense of speed. And remember that selling memory
is a good business for all vendors, even those who don't sell it at 20
times the street price.


> At the end of the day, it is possible to optimize by
> processing fewer bits

This would have been true in the past, but not anymore. By the time the
size of the routing table is so big that it requires optimization, there
will be no processor that does not have a 64-bit core and processing
64-bit elements will be as fast as processing 32-bit elements.

Besides, do some basic math:
1 million IPv6 routes/paths (we're not there yet, are we?)
Stored at 32 bits: 4 Megabytes
Stored at 48 bits: 6 Megabytes
(the other associated storage such as the AS-PATH would not change)
Difference: 2 Megabytes. Give me a break, this is not worth any code
complexity nor custom chip design even as of today.


> and we should not remove that option from the table by making
> bad policy and introducing yet another class of IPv6 address.

We are not introducing yet another class of IPv6 addresses. /48 for
sites has always been the deal.

> If an organisation has an AS number then their
> network is not a "site".

Where does this come from?

Michel.