nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:39:27 +0800
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 05:10:15 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
Of course this isn't strictly true,...
Of course, not "strictly". What I meant was the CRS and ASR9000 don't operate like the 6500/7600 and other Cisco switches that punted packets to CPU if, for one reason or another, a bug or misconfiguration caused said packets to be sent to the CPU for forwarding. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?, (continued)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ryan Malayter (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ryan Malayter (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Mark Tinka (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Saku Ytti (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Mark Tinka (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 29)