On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Secondly, at the time, a 9600 baud leased line was a *high speed* link,
> > and 56KB was "long haul backbone link". The added 4 bytes/packet would
> > be noticable at that speed.
> >
>
> In my opinion, adding any useless bits or bytes in the IP headers is not a
> good thing.
> With IPv16, we move the 4 bit version number out, as an implied constant. If
> one
> is connected, they assume that version. It makes no sense to waste 4 bits in
> each
> packet for a constant version number.
why we are going from IPv6 to IPv16?
Is there noway to modify our original alogrithums to take care? (I think
this surely creat problems in future!)
Worm Regards,
--balaji
>
> In the same 20 byte foot-print, various trade-offs yield more space for
> address bits.
> IPv4 is clearly very wasteful.
>
> IPv4 - 40%
> IPv8 - 59%
> IPv16 - 80%
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
>
--
--balaji
