[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[mack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: briand at ca.afilias.info [mailto:briand at ca.afilias.info]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:52 PM
> To: mack
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>
> "Mack" wrote:
> > In the most relevant products from Cisco (sup32 and sup720) the IPv6
> is
> > stored in a TCAM with a different architecture from the IPv4 TCAM.
> > Specifically the Sup32 and Sup720-3B both have 256000 IPv4 slots and
> > 128000 IPv6 slots.
>
> Wrong.
>
> A closer inspection of the literature, you will find, says *or*, not
> *and*.
>
> Meaning, 256k IPv4 *only*, or 128k IPv6 *only*.
>
> And the default set-up is a mix of 192k IPv4 and 32k combined
> IPv6-and-multicast.

I stand corrected. Is there a command to modify this?
I was unable to find a documented command to do this.
The Sup32 and Sup720-3B are basically dead as far as the DFZ are concerned.
They will continue to work at the edge where routes can be pruned but not at the core.
If there is not easy way to modify the FIB ratios then these units can't take a full
set of routes now.  And have not been able to for a substantial amount of time.

>
> > An argument can be made that it will be cheaper for some
> organizations to
> > switch to IPv6 shortly due to the impending limit of the FIB TCAM on
> their
> > routers.
>
> Organizations at the edge, maybe, who don't do content or services.
> Who can deploy IPv6 to IPv4 NAT gateways at their upstream edges.
>
> Not content players, and not DFZ players, for sure.

The DFZ core has already upgraded (at least the networks I deal with).
256K was insufficient for the routing table plus internal routes months ago.

>
> > In any case the most relevant Cisco products are going to run out of
> IPv4
> > TCAM space before IPv6 even makes a dent.
>
> ... which is all the *more* reason why paying close attention to IPv6
> allocation, aggregation, and usage, is so important.
>
> Brian


If the TCAM distribution is not modifiable this is not as relevant.

Mack