Hmm, i dunno... But, neighbour discovery all the same, it's a means of passing packets anyway, and if it's going over a /64 with x hundred systems connected to it, and all x hundred hosts are 'discovering' too it might slow things down; essentially back where you starting with arp congestion really, so i don't see any improvement just because ipv6 uses a different flavour of arp with a different name?
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:22:54 +1100, Geoff Crompton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ��������������: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:20:09PM +0000, Daniel O'Neill wrote: > > well, ARPs still take up bandwidth, and I'm not sure the scale you're > > talking about. I would recommend a tiered structure of gateways, each > > handling, say, 80bits worth of hosts or whichever you prefer, then route > > the gateways through each other. This also makes it easier for protocols > > such as SMB and NMB to function correctly, if they ever function ever > > again. Also, this allows you to create scopes for any incurred broadcasts > > you wish to send out: > > > > I was under the impression that IPv6 did not rely on ARP packets. That > it used Neighbourhood Discovery instead. Hence it did not rely on > anything below OSI Layer 3 for functionality, apart from the ability to > broadcast messages. Am I incorrect, or where you making ARP synonymous with > ND? > > Geoff Crompton > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
pgpEhFJMuX4bS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
