| |||||||||||||
What about IPv6 right here on earth?What about IPv6 right here on earth?Posted Jan 26, 2011 23:16 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670)In reply to: What about IPv6 right here on earth? by cmccabe Parent article: LCA: Vint Cerf on re-engineering the Internet
Your premise is wrong. IPv6 is much cheaper to switch in hardware because if its fixed header size. Less complexity leads to more performance at a lower price.
Also since the routing logic is simplified I'd even expect routing tables to drop in size, at least initially, despite the addresses being that much larger. I may be wrong on that, but see above.
(Log in to post comments)
What about IPv6 right here on earth? Posted Jan 27, 2011 11:44 UTC (Thu) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] But it's either route IPv6 on hardware built to optimize 32-bit-address performance or buy an IPv6-optimized twin for every router they have. Looks like doing the former hurts so bad it makes no difference, the switch to IPv6 will make them double their router investment either way.
What about IPv6 right here on earth? Posted Jan 27, 2011 16:16 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Of course you're working against the market here. Any change will meet economic resistance since the perceived markets starts out very small. But this is a truism, and would be the case independent of whether the change is IPvDJB or IPv6.
My point is that IPv6 is easier and cheaper to route than IPv4, not the other way around.
|
|||||||||||||