On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Tim Soderstrom wrote:
> Just a couple of concerns:
>
> So this has been bugging me since I first read technical reports on the
> whole thing quite a few years ago: Isn't 128-bits kinda, well, a lot? I
> mean that's 4 times bigger than 32-bits, so doesn't that mean it will
> incur 4x more overhead?
There is no 4x overhead:
The length of the header of a simple IPv4 packet is usually 24 byte
while a simplest IPv6 header is usually 40 byte since lots of unnecessary
fields become optional.
>
> For example, I have a 160bps upstream with my DSL provider...right now
> is just barely enough to stream mp3's on IPv4. On IPv6, however, I worry
> that a much bigger chunk of my bits will be used simply for addressing.
> How does IPv6 answer this (as it is really the only thing holding me
> back).
>
> Also, does IPv6 or could IPv6, 7, or 8 :) Employ a type of 'smart
> addressing' feature? For example, if all I need to do is communicate
> amongst my subnet or my local network, it seems wasteful to send
> 128-bits for that. So why not simply send the number of bits that is in
> the subnet mask or assume a right justification of the bits recieved so
> that the computer can and it to a mask and know where it came from or
> something similar?
There is a possibility to compress the header see: RFC 2507
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPv6 Users Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
