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
