William Allen Simpson wrote:
Something similar happened with IPv6. Cisco favored a design where only
they had the hardware mechanism for high speed forwarding. So we're
stuck with 128-bit addresses and separate ASNs.
Really?
Given that high speed forwarding at that time meant TCAM,
difference between 128 bit address should mean merely twice
more TCAM capacity than 64 bit address.
I think the primary motivation for 128 bit was to somehow
encode NSAP addresses into IPng ones as is exemplified
by RFC1888. Though the motivation does not make any
engineering sense, IPv6 neither.
Masataka Ohta
