[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DUB123-W32175F346BC24A876CDAA2ED6F0@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:03:42 +0200
From: Lukas Tribus <luky-37@...mail.com>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"hannes@...essinduktion.org" <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.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!
FYI, this was also mentioned by Paul Saab from Facebook in a
presentation [1] during last months V6 World Congress [2].
Looks like more and more people start hitting this.
Best regards,
Lukas
[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2234775539/10152303014725540/
[2] http://www.uppersideconferences.com/v6world2014/v6world2014introduction.html --
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists