On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 13:57, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com > wrote:
> If you're using VLANs you are operating multiple LANs as far as IP > is concerned, so this is not really solving the problem of heterogeneous > hosts on the same LAN. > Correct. I'm making the statement that in many of the use cases I've heard so far, you don't have to solve this problem by changing the protocols that are defined (e.g., by adding a route option), you can solve it at a different layer, and that doing so is actually simpler. In the BBF use case, for example, the hosts are actually forbidden to talk to each other without using the BNG as an intermediary (for various reasons including legal intercept, billing, and so on). In this case, using separate VLANs is actually a much better solution than the complex combination of DHCP snooping, ARP spoofing, and MAC-to-IP forcing that is done in many existing deployments today. The complex solution works in IPv4, but it really starts to show its limitations in IPv6. I don't think the right solution is to complicate IPv6 until it reaches the level of complexity that we have been forced to reach in IPv4 due to address exhaustion and the resort to NATs as a crutch that allows the network operator to fix the problem by making the application layer more complex.
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
