On: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

[stingraycharles]

How do you ensure each user is capped at 100 connections without that check incurring additional resources?

[londons_explore → stingraycharles]

You have a per user counter. So instead of 1200 bytes it's 1201 bytes per user.

[stingraycharles → londons_explore]

Memory isn’t the only dimension we care about.

You’ve basically proposed an absolutely horrible solution, for both the end-user and the ISP. Something tells me you haven’t actually done any actual low level network engineering, and just brush all this off as “how hard can it be”.

[kazen44 → londons_explore]

how are you going to keep this counter? Do you identify the bytes that are processed in individual flows? Which system will keep track of this? the control plane of the router maybe? great... you just added additional complexity instead of just pushing packets through a forwarding plane.

[Dylan16807 → kazen44]

When an unrecognized flow shows up, punt it to software. Handle the counter there, and if it overflows then you drop the packets. No need to add anything to the control plane.

[kazen44 → Dylan16807]

"punting it to software" from a router with seperate control and forwarding planes perspective, is forwarding it to a control plane, instead of relying on the logic programmed inside the ASIC to forward traffic.

[Dylan16807 → kazen44]

Sorry, I meant no need to add anything to the forwarding plane, or interfere with its efficiency at all.

The point is, the really fast part doesn't need to be more complex.

The part that handles new connections needs to be marginally more complicated, but not enough that it should really matter.