[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

Gary T. Giesen ggiesen at akn.ca
Wed Apr 14 17:11:13 EDT 2010

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 17:07 -0400, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 4/14/2010 1:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> If you take a full unfiltered table without a default route, yes. This
> >> is pretty basic for BGP.
> >>
> >
> > I understand that. The issue is how many take a full table.
> >
> I think that years ago a lot more didn't take a full table.  But
> dram is cheaper than paying a network admin to maintain a filter
> table and so many sites nowadays haven't seemed to have heard
> anything about the RADb or what it does, so filters created from
> that database are more historical interest than anything else.
> Without a valid and current routing arbiter it's a very labor intensive 
> process to keep a filter updated, and the community cannot seem even to
> keep WHOIS updated properly.
> I'm just crossing my fingers that the hardware vendors can keep
> ahead of table growth.  Maybe it would have been better for Nvidia
> or ATI to be the major router manufacturers instead of Juniper or
> Cisco, since both those companies seem to have an allergy to large
> amounts of high speed ram in their products.

Even new Cisco's CPEs have have 2 GB of ram in them these days
(19xx/29xx series). But you're comparing two *COMPLETELY* different
kinds of ram. The Tertiary Content-Addressable Memory in hardware
forwarding platforms (7600 & up, Juniper M series) is *extremely*
expensive and they're running into density problems now. It's nothing
like the DRAM you see in a GPU.


> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list