Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?

On 12/31/15 10:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01/01/2016 06:04, Jared Mauch wrote:
> ...
> > The reason we (as an operator) can’t use BCP-38 is the vendor hardware can’t 
> > do it at line-rate and the performance hit is too much to sustain.
> That seems worth a bit more discussion. I'd always naively assumed that BCP38 
> was
> scalable since all it appears to need is a prefix match, and routers are very
> good at matching prefixes; it's just that they don't normally match the source
> prefix. Could some router-vendor person comment on this?
Not all routers use ternary cams , and some that do employ them
algorithmically, so it's not one and done in either case. if you have
multiple depedant memory accesses associated with a match, those need to
be serialized.

If the maximum pps of your linecard drops by say 50% when you enable a
feature that's a bit of a problem.

> There's another issue here, though. BCP-38 and uRPF are also a potential 
> cause of
> connectivity problems: 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host
>
>    Brian

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature