Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

John Levine wrote:

> > Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and
> > software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of adding IPv6 to
> > their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as
> > Akamai.
>
> I wasn't talking about switches and routers.

But, on routers, IPv6 costs four times more than IPv4 to
look up routing table with TCAM or Patricia tree.

It is not a problem yet, merely because full routing table of
IPv6 is a lot smaller than that of IPv4, which means most
small ISPs and multihomed sites do not support IPv6.


Mark Andrews wrote:

> There is nothing at the protocol level stopping AT&T offering a
> similar level of service.

Setting up reverse DNS lookup for 16B address is annoying,
which may stop AT&T offering it.

> Don’t equate poor implementation with the protocol being broken.

IPv6 is broken in several ways. One of the worst thing is its
address length.

                                                Masataka Ohta