3 ms·
Support as in "can process ipv6 traffic?" Or support as it "can process a volume of ipv6 traffic with performance and practical feature characteristics on par w
by nnnnnnnn 14y ago
Support as in "can process ipv6 traffic?" Or support as it "can process a volume of ipv6 traffic with performance and practical feature characteristics on par with its handling of ipv4 traffic?"
If you mean the former then sure, but that's not the point. The latter is what hampers adoption and I assure you, most hardware produced in the last 10 years does not support ipv6 to the degree that it does ipv4.
- ajb 14y agoI mean the latter, but I'm talking about just the silicon, not the complete product produced by (say) a switch vendor, which perhaps explains the difference.
- nnnnnnnn 14y agoIt's disingenuous to refer to unshipped silicon. If it's not available in vendor hardware it's hardly a "software problem." You appear now to be saying "Chips exist, but vendors aren't building them into switches" which is a far cry from your original claim.
- ajb 14y agoNo, that is not what I wrote.
- kylemaxwell 14y agoNo, he's saying "the chips are in the switches, but networking vendors may not have mature support in the operating system". Think Cisco IOS as an example of the software that has to support the protocol in addition to what the silicon can do.
- nnnnnnnn 14y agoThen that is a categorically untrue statement. Perhaps he is thinking of one vendor (or more likely one particular model supplied by one vendor) in particular? In any event, it is absolutely false that "all of the silicon out there" has feature and performance parity with ipv4.