[156722] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Bool)
Mon Sep 24 18:35:09 2012
From: Adrian Bool <aid@logic.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAas8H8ERETrcnn0TaFD3cNToAfpdy12G6goNP5e=2cYtH1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:34:30 +0100
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote:
> While you could do something similar without the encapsulation this
> would require that every router on your network support routing on
> port numbers,
Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed to =
leverage hierarchy to reduce routing complexity. Using the hierarchy, =
port number routing is only required at the level where a routes diverge =
on a port basis - which if you're being sensible about such a deployment =
would only be at the edge of the access layer.
aid
