[168300] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Sat Jan 18 07:22:33 2014
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:22:08 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHDzDLA=O9f7si6VZiZyr=B+HShvW0eztYPExNd7fPuhmE3-tw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 18/01/2014 04:09, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> Does anyone have any experiences or insights to share on how more (or
> less) efficient routing is with IPv6? Any specific thoughts with respect to
> how the following characteristics help or not with routing efficiency?
> - fixed header size
> - Extension header chain
> - flow labels in header
> - no intermediate fragmentation
> - no checksums
extension headers are a poor idea because it's troublesome to process them
on cheap hardware. Because of this, packets with any sort of extension
headers are routinely dropped by a large percentage of organisations. Flow
labels are generally unused (i.e. set to zero by many host stacks).
Nick
