[151297] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Thu Mar 15 08:59:30 2012
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:57:10 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20120315105415.GC9891@leitl.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> For high speed (fixed time) routed look up with 1M entries, SRAM is
>> cheap at /24 and is fine at /32 but expensive and power consuming
>> TCAM is required at /48.
>>
>> That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
>
> What prevents you from using
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/full/ncomms1063.html
> with IPv6?
Though I didn't paid $32 to read the full paper, it's like
a proposal of geography based addressing.
So, I should ask what prevents you from using it with IPv4?
Masataka Ohta
