IPv6 woes - RFC

Sun Sep 19 06:20:09 UTC 2021

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