News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:IAB Statement on IPv6 by mikecb on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @01:47PM (#12902844)
Doesn't ipv6 include efficiencies for this, like hierarchical prefixes?
Re:IAB Statement on IPv6 by tptacek on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @01:56PM (#12902911)
In practical reality, doesn't that just mitigate the strain caused by an explosion in the size of the address tables?
Re:IAB Statement on IPv6 by toast0 on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @09:51PM (#12905758)
A sometimes large but solvable part of the problem in ipv4 routing table sizes is numerically adjacent routes that could be aggregated into fewer announcements but aren't; ipv6 doesn't help with that. Another part of the problem is that many networks have lots of allocations that aren't adjacent, so they can't aggregate them; ipv6 should help with that as there's room for big allocations.
Re:IAB Statement on IPv6 by mikecb on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @02:28PM (#12903200)
I guess it depends on how big the efficiency gain is, but afaik it's pretty big.