On 20/8/19 05:45, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) wrote: > I just wonder, over two decades ago when the discussions happened, > whether the question that was asked most was " Why do we need to go with > 128 bits address space if whatever is been trying to achieve with the > existing approach of IPv6, can be achieved by 64 32bits (IPv4) address > space as well?" > > > > But as we can see that the consensus (though maybe rough) was finally > achieved back then when the hardware and software capabilities were > still very limited. People say “wise people made history”. I always > believe so. > > > > Just a bit curious about, why NOW when today’s technologies (HW/SW > processing capabilities as well as the ever-increasing bandwidth) are > more advanced compared with those at 25 years ago, suddenly people > become very concern with the overhead and start questioning about the > “extra burden” caused by the packet address/header length… One possible answer: IoT. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
