[97643] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bora Akyol)
Thu Jun 28 16:12:17 2007
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 -0700
From: Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
brett watson <brett@the-watsons.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20070628195526.1A7EF766055@berkshire.machshav.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
> IPv6 isn't what I wanted it to be (and I was on the IPng directorate).
> That said, it's what we have, and I think we *really* need something
> with a lot more address space.
>
At a very low, hardware centric level, IPv6 would be a lot easier to
implement if
1) The addresses were 64 bits instead of 128 bits.
2) The extension headers architecture was completely revamped to be more
hardware friendly.
I hear a lot of noise about wanting to do 40GE/100GE with L2/L3 switching,
but it is difficult to extremely difficult to implement hardware that can
accommodate all the flexibility of v6 and keep up.
IPv6 is a software architect's dream and a hardware architect's nightmare
;-)
Bora
