Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

[Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>]

On 3/10/12 2:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well.
>
> i don't see the problem with that.
>
> just get routers with enough memory...
>
> i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size
> (let's say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's
> 2012 after all ;) than for putting limits on the prefix sized announced
> so "old junk" can still stay connected to the internet.
>
> let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1
> route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything
> produced AFTER 2008 actually.
>
> stop buying crap without sufficient ram, or just scrap it and get new
> stuff. (which you're going to have to do to efficiently route ipv6
> -anyway- at some point, as your old stuff, simply doesn't even
> loadbalance trunked ethernet ports properly (layer 3 based) ;)


I'm under the impression from your messages in this thread that you're
unaware or unfamiliar with TCAM.

~Seth