> > IPv6 isn't what I wanted it to be (and I was on the IPng directorate). > That said, it's what we have, and I think we *really* need something > with a lot more address space. > 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. I hear a lot of noise about wanting to do 40GE/100GE with L2/L3 switching, but it is difficult to extremely difficult to implement hardware that can accommodate all the flexibility of v6 and keep up. IPv6 is a software architect's dream and a hardware architect's nightmare ;-) Bora
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Tra... Joel Jaeggli
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Tra... Lynda True (aka Etaoin Shrdlu)
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transiti... John Curran
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transiti... Randy Bush
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Tra... John Curran
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or... Randy Bush
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or... Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustio... brett watson
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhau... Randy Bush
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhau... Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 ... Bora Akyol
- Re: The Choice: I... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: The Choice: I... Bora Akyol
- Re: The Choice: I... Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 ... Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Tra... Joe Abley
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transiti... John Curran
- Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Tra... Donald Stahl
- Re: v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice... Stephen Wilcox
- Re: v6 multihoming (Re: The Ch... Joel Jaeggli
- Re: v6 multihoming (Re: Th... Nicolás Antoniello