netdev - Re: IPv6 routing table max_size badly dimensioned compared to IPv4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:07:35 +0100
From:	bert hubert <bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 routing table max_size badly dimensioned compared to IPv4

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:47:55PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > If we need to perform 10000 inserts per second, and gc timeout is 60
> > seconds, tree contains 600.000 entries, gc takes forever...
> 
> The only long term solution is to align ipv6 to be more like ipv4.

Yes please. There appears to be a lingering assumption IPv6 is small scale.

T-Mobile USA is now providing IPv6 only service via DNA64/NAT64, creating
(dozens of) millions of IPv6 only clients. (More on this 'hack' on
http://blog.powerdns.com/2013/05/17/ripe-66-powerdns-and-dns64nat64/ )

So aligning IPv6 scalability with IPv4 scalability would be grand, thanks!

	Bert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html