7 Apr
2005
7 Apr
'05
11:58 a.m.
Sidetracking #2:
Savings in IPv4 space, do not carry over into IPv6. That is why we lose these savings. But the size of the routing table increases by 4 times therefore requiring 4 times as much RAM and 4 times as much time to send/receive full routes.
If this is the case we are looking at a poor implementation (memory-consumption-wise), imho. For a routing decision you don't need 32 bits for an IPv4 prefix, and you do not need 128 bits for an IPv6 prefix. My wild guess would be that the ratio is rather on the order of 1:1.5 than 1:4. [ Anyone having statistics about the average length of an IPv4 prefix? Probably in the range of (20..)21..22(..23) ] Wilfried.