On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu>
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
