nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 "bloat"
From: Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:47:59 -0400
It has "features" which are at a minimum problematic and at a maximum show stoppers for network operators.
IPv6 seems like it was designed to be a private network communication stack, and how an ISP would use and distribute it was a second though.
On 3/19/22 5:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
So out of the current discussions a lot of people have claimed that ipv6 is bloated or suffers from second system syndrome, etc. So I decided to look at a linux kernel (HEAD I assume) and look at the differences between the v6 and v4 directories. I just crudely did a line count as a quick measure:ipv6: 68k lines ipv4: 97k linesipv4 looks to have the tcp and udp implementations (35k) so backing that out it is about 62k lines. That's pretty comparable. Linux has full routing capability so the kernel implements it for both.So I'm just not getting where this "bloat" is. 10% growth for a second system syndrome seems almost miraculously good, imo.What am i missing? This is in complete agreement with my intuition 30 years ago that it was no big deal, at least from a software standpoint.Mike
Current thread:
- IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Enno Rey (Mar 20)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe (Mar 20)