|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
The length of the address (64 vs 128) is not the hard part. Just increases the cost and the complexity of the ASIC ;-) The extension headers become a real problem when L4 filtering is desired. Bora On 6/28/07 2:46 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
|