Hi Ted,
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:18:50 -0400 Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > I agree, that's the deployment model I advocate for hostile scenarios. Use > > DHCPv6 for stateful addressing, advertise default GW via RA, don't > > advertise any on-link prefix, and make sure hosts can't L2 communicate at > > all with each other by means of enforcement in switches (or just separate > > them into different L2 domains). > > Huh. If I had a choice between RA and multicast, I think I'd choose > multicast. When you have to utterly cripple your technology in order to > continue using a protocol, I think it's time to ask whether or not the > protocol you're using is the right protocol at all. > You're right, with Ethernet being the wrong protocol. An Ethernet LAN's nature is peer-to-peer or full mesh - every attached node can send to any other individual node, many other nodes, or all other nodes. For SPs who want to bill for, and possibly control/sanitise their inter-customer traffic, this link layer peer-to-peer nature is a problem. Hub-and-spoke or point-to-point reachability is what they want. If it is possible to enforce a hub-or-spoke topology on an Ethernet LAN by preventing the 1-to-many or 1-to-any capability, in effect making it an NBMA link-layer, or creating a point-to-point topology via VLANs, then Ethernet is the best choice because it is both cheap and ubiquitous. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
