So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Mark Tinka]

On Sunday 30 May 2010 06:05:45 pm Benedikt Stockebrand 
wrote:

> For the same reason, in these environments I'd rather use
>  RIP{v2,ng} over OSPFv[23].  You always have to find the
>  balance between easy-to-handle simplicity and
>  ultimate-performance complexity on an individual basis,
>  and in all these cases it largely depends on the people
>  involved rather than the technology as such.

I probably wouldn't go around saying RIP is better to deploy 
than a link-state routing protocol (despite the "balance 
between easy-to-handle simplicity and ultimate performance 
complexity" quote), but I gather that isn't the gist of this 
thread.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100601/fe5ca04d/attachment.bin