[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 Pain Experiment
- Subject: IPv6 Pain Experiment
- From: mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:41:12 +0900
- In-reply-to: <CAKr6gn08No=ca=KRsvYdi8gx3tKp-6cdngKyy9_NPg=BbYjqpQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAHdm834jbwky2sPpH6HmJoYu=Rcjz0Hb1bCq2zy1hsdYOSN9sQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAHdm835KznNAgj1p3DhNNL11n7z4mnaCKV+BB=-qMyk81s8_3Q@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAKr6gn3UehJThwJcNfT1uEWPW8GOzqBK=W34e1bLUXojmAtcuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn08No=ca=KRsvYdi8gx3tKp-6cdngKyy9_NPg=BbYjqpQ@mail.gmail.com>
George Michaelson wrote:
> Personally, I choose to favour continued deployment of IPv6.
With
I sometimes wish I understood why SRC was the first
element off the wire, and not DST, Since rational
ASIC/FPGA hardware can latch early on the SRC and
begin routing faster if it appears in natural bit
order first.
you are saying IPv4 is better than IPv6.
> I do not favour the CGN v4 forever model,
As NAT can be modified in backward compatible manner
to preserve E2E transparency, don't mind.
Masataka Ohta