So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Jun 1 19:25:10 CEST 2010
On 6/1/2010 9:29 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 14:56, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>> destination. NUD ensures that a dead router is detected at an average
>> 30s, plusminus 15s to avoid synchronization effects. RFC 4861 has all
>> the details.
> It kills me to add further noise to this thread, but this is probably one
> of the base sources of contention. It seems that you're happy with 15-45
> seconds as an operationally / commercially acceptable time period for loss
> of service in the event of gateway failure / failover. If you accept this
> level of service unavailability, then RA / NUD is quite adequate.
> I don't accept that this is an acceptable operational / commercial
> proposition for my customers. Therefore RA / NUD is not viable on the
> networks which I deal with.
I don't accept that routers routinely dying is an acceptable operational
/ commercial proposition for our customers.
Just for grins I just checked and the last SCHEDULED reboot of our own
largest and most complex BGP-running router was 50 weeks ago.
The last UNSCHEDULED reboot was something like 5 YEARS ago.
> Good, we've cleared something up.
Obviously. Clearly your standards for acceptable router hardware are
far, far lower than a lot of peoples. I would guess that's why your
so concerned with a 30 second slew time.
More information about the ipv6-ops