[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Oliver Bartels
oliver at bartels.de
Tue Jun 22 14:10:02 CEST 2004
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:49:12 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >"Proven"? When, where, by whom, based on what data? > >There are less than 10.000 LIRs in existance today, all RIRs combined. > >So that would be a maximum of 10.000 routing table entries (if we >can manage to keep it at "1 prefix per LIR"). Full Ack. A table of this size is handled with a one cycle memory access in modern routing hardware. Best Regards Oliver Bartels Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]