>
> Followup to: <199611201101.LAA11593@oberon.di.fc.ul.pt>
> By author: Pedro Roque <roque@di.fc.ul.pt>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Which is quite natural as nobody in it's right mind would want to route
> > variable length addresses. Variable length fields should only exist in
> > data to be processed in slow paths. Anyway, 128 bits is more than enought
> > for IPv6. Note that the 32 bits where a good choice for IPv4.
Hey! I disagree. OSI variable-length addresses seem to work okay and
have several useful properties that I don't see elsewhere.
> Quite true, but the IPv6 address space is expected to be exhausted in
> 30 years. The switch from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be painful, but
> that is nothing compared to what switching standard protocol stacks in
> the late 2020's would be like...!
There's one now. :-)
Maybe this thread should move to another list/newsgroup/whatever.
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer MWOOD@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to reimplement it.