[168308] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mukom Akong T.)
Sat Jan 18 22:56:00 2014
In-Reply-To: <201401181951.11494.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
From: "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 07:55:04 +0400
To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thank you all for your insightful responses (please keep them coming).
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> It could (as a function of raw traffic).
>
> What's the concern, unless we misunderstand?
>
Was just trying to get more info from large networks about whether how some
of the things that make theoretical logical sense actually work out in
practice that way e.g. whether fixed header size and the fewer headers
required to decode to read an IPv6 packet (with respect to IPv4) really may
provide some signifiant performance advantages.
I do realise that question might be difficult to prove on a real network
that runs dual stack. Since the existence of IPv4 on both control and data
planes may have consequences that we don't immediately understand.
--=20
Mukom Akong T.
http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------
=E2=80=9CWhen you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whisperin=
g of the
hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------------------------
