7 ms·
Because we'd be talking about something closer to ipv4+1, something that allowed core equipment to not have to process packets in a different way and maintain c
by trotsky 13y ago
Because we'd be talking about something closer to ipv4+1, something that allowed core equipment to not have to process packets in a different way and maintain completely separate routing tables for granularity of traffic that only matters at the edge.
- josteink 13y agoBecause we'd be talking about something closer to ipv4+1, something that allowed core equipment to not have to process packets in a different way If that would be true, then it wouldn't be able to provide any better end-to-end connectivity than IPv4 and thus would be a completely wasted effort.