Over-utilisation of v6 neighbour slots

Phil Mayers p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Wed Oct 23 10:02:16 CEST 2013

On 10/23/2013 07:25 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 22/10/2013 17:18, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> It's stuff like this that makes me think it's *still* not time to offer
>> a general v6 service.
> generally, the sup720 is not a good edge device for third party L3 services
> due to rate limiter issues.

Shrug. People have them (in quantity) because they're cost effective and 
did a mix of stuff that no other box did, that it turns out a lot of 
people wanted, and in most cases tolerably well.

They'll eventually get replaced and then we'll be complaining about the 
next device. But there's no guarantee that the next device won't have 
the EXACT same problem; we would have seen the same issue on sup2T or 

Maybe some other device like an ASR or MX would handle direct-attached 
neighbours with more aplomb, but then we'd have about 1/2-1/3 the 
traffic capacity as a result of their higher cost, and our customers 
want "teh bandwidths". And I'm absolutely certain those platforms have 

There's no perfect device, otherwise we'd all be buying it and this 
discussion wouldn't be happening.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list