Pekka Savola;

> There is only marginal value in
> ND using multicast (compared to broadcast), as the typical number of
> nodes per link is so low that broadcast storms are not a real problem.

I'm afraid you use the term "broadcast storm" incorrectly
(the broadcast storm is huge number of broadcast-style (including
all-*-multicast) packets caused by incorrectly implemented/configured
nodes.

Note also that, on WLAN, even unicast packets are broadcast.

>>The solution has been never bother to have standard way of
>>address resolution.

> I have to disagree here.  Just because broadcast/multicast (ND) isn't
> optimized for WLAN (or CSMA/CA in general, I guess), that doesn't
> nullify the usefulness of ND for all the other media for which this is
> not a problem.

It has been wrong to try to make ND "useful" for all the useless
purposes, some of which is already recognized useless or
harmful (for example, at first, as reasoning not to use ARP, it
was proposed to send unicast data packet over link multicast,
which was expected to eliminate the need for a pending queue).
Now, it is more and more widely recognized that stateless
autoconfiguration, which was invented as reasoning not to
use DHCP, is not as useful as expected.

The sane thing to do is to narrow the scope as much as possible
and to remove features as much as possible.

For example, MIPv6 suffer, because it, seemingly, recognized ND
available on all the link types and developped protocol. Then,
it was found that ND timing values makes MIPv6 not useful for
quickly moving hosts. It is wrong to have standard timings
ignoring link specific properties. And, then, there is no
reason to have standard protocols ignoring link specific
properties.

If we concentrate on Ethernet and address resolution, there is
no reason not to use ARP.

                                                Masataka Ohta



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to