Re: IPv6 adoption

[Andrew Lenharth <adl@cs.washington.edu>]

> Hmmm...  So, anyway, with dynamic-sized addresses, you have to have
> some way for the processor (program, not "chip") to know what the size
> is, so you'd either have to send the size first, or have an 'End of
> Size'
> code, that would cut into your potential code space.  Seems inefficient.
> Less processing needed = more packets put through.  Use your parallel
> processing to push more packets through, less whatever is filtered out.

No, not really.  You just need two parts ofthe address.  Just have a fixed
size address, say 32 or 64 bits or so, for routing purposes.  This would
identify the network.  Follow this by a variable number of bytes for
optional address bits.  
The main routers on the backbones could just worry about the fixed
address, thus not slowing them down, while the local routers wouldbe the
ones to worry about extended address space.

Efficient where it really matters (the backbones) and still maintaining
the addvantages of variable length addresses.

Andrew Lenharth