[97647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jun 28 18:02:49 2007
To: Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
brett watson <brett@the-watsons.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 PDT."
<C2A96364.1062%bora.akyol@aprius.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:46:53 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1183067213_3472P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
> 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.
Wow, a blast from the past. The *current* IPv6 design was selected to a
good extent because it was *easier* to do in hardware than some of the other
contenders. You think 64 versus 128 is tough - think about the ASIC fun and
games to support *variable length* addresses (not necessarily even a multiple
of 4 bytes, in some of the proposals. Could be 7, could be 11, check the
address length field for details. Yee. Hah).
--==_Exmh_1183067213_3472P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFGhCxNcC3lWbTT17ARAmJ6AKDUqn40m3DGuOWxucH0zoZLMLL3tgCff4+f
/EsXsHIm+YBHnN8Px5qqYvw=
=WMac
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1183067213_3472P--
