On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
That's an overstatement. IPv6 works just fine over 802.11, it just
From what I heard in v6ops, it doesn't work well for larger settings like
conferences, at least not without multicast reduction techniques.
So I'd say it suffers from the exact same problem as you've seen at
battlemesh that multicast can't be used for anything else than discovery
on platforms that don't implement multicast reduction/assured-delivery
techniques.
suffers from increased multicast packet loss and lower rate. I don't
think there's anything in the IPv6 architecture that requires (link-local)
multicast performance to match unicast performance.
If you miss a few RAs in a row, you lose your default route and your
prefix. With the tens of percent of packet loss you yourself mentioned,
IPv6 doesn't work.
While it would be nice to have better multicast performance, I don't
think it's productive to be overly alarmist ("IPv6 obsolete before it
gets deployed, according to IETF spokesperson. News at eleven.").
I don't see how you can claim that ISIS can't use multicast on wifi
because multicast on wifi doesn't work, but then next claim that IPv6
multicast usage is fine.
Even though I haven't seen the multicast problem myself in my 15-20 years
of using wifi for personal use, I thought I understood the problem well
enough from the reports from the past few years, that I now fully support
work that either reduces multicast on wifi to minimum, or work that will
make multicast as reliable as unicast. Are you really now saying "it's not
that bad" from your experience at battlemesh? How much IPv6 do you do at
battlemesh anyway?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
