I don't get why Juniper and Cisco trie-lookup forwarding would differ in comparing IPv4 and IPv6; Juniper does a 8+1+1+1+1+... search until a leaf node is found, while Cisco does 16+8+8 (or something near it but still with 3 phases); for both architetures, IPv6 longer addresses implies walking more deeply into the tree in order to find where to route.
Uhh...... One trie lookup is fully supported in ASIC, the other is not.
Just to be sure, my point here is not where the effective IPv6
suits one needs or not, but wether a router that can forward <amount> Mpps of IPv4/MPLS packets can also forward the same amount of IPv6 packets
That probably would not yield half the performance, but a really crappy performance according to my standards (not so tight as Randy's). performance per
second.
Personally I'd say the routing protocol functionality and stability is as important if not more important. I don't see the point in implementing a v6 network consisting of seperate 7206vxrs (to contain the ios crashes) and tunnels, if you're going to bother with it at least do it native and do it right.
In a ground-up design, yes. Upgrading an existing network in low capex times is not that easy to do. Rubens