[168302] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mukom Akong T.)
Sat Jan 18 11:08:17 2014
In-Reply-To: <20140118054256.GA25595@vacation.karoshi.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:07:59 +0400
From: "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 18 Jan 2014 09:42, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
>
>
> please define "efficient" in this context.
Would a routing device process (while forwarding for example) more IPv6
packets than IPv4?
Not a dictionary definition
>
> /bill
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 08:09:58AM +0400, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mukom Akong T.
> >
> > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------
> > =E2=80=9CWhen you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whisp=
ering of
the
> > hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------------------------
