nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 21:19:49 +0900
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Something similar happened with IPv6. Cisco favored a design where only they had the hardware mechanism for high speed forwarding. So we're stuck with 128-bit addresses and separate ASNs.
Really? Given that high speed forwarding at that time meant TCAM, difference between 128 bit address should mean merely twice more TCAM capacity than 64 bit address. I think the primary motivation for 128 bit was to somehow encode NSAP addresses into IPng ones as is exemplified by RFC1888. Though the motivation does not make any engineering sense, IPv6 neither. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 02)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC William Allen Simpson (Nov 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Donald Eastlake (Nov 02)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC bzs (Nov 02)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Fred Baker (Nov 04)
- RE: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Nov 04)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Joel Jaeggli (Nov 07)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Masataka Ohta (Nov 05)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC William Allen Simpson (Nov 07)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Mark Tinka (Nov 06)