John Levine wrote:
Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of adding IPv6 to their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as Akamai.
I wasn't talking about switches and routers.
But, on routers, IPv6 costs four times more than IPv4 to look up routing table with TCAM or Patricia tree. It is not a problem yet, merely because full routing table of IPv6 is a lot smaller than that of IPv4, which means most small ISPs and multihomed sites do not support IPv6. Mark Andrews wrote:
There is nothing at the protocol level stopping AT&T offering a similar level of service.
Setting up reverse DNS lookup for 16B address is annoying, which may stop AT&T offering it.
Don’t equate poor implementation with the protocol being broken.
IPv6 is broken in several ways. One of the worst thing is its address length. Masataka Ohta