On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > 2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker <[email protected]>: > > As soon as you spilt a /64 into something smaler you left IPv6 land end > > entered something that looks like IPv6 but isn't. Sure it is possible but > > by doing it you make every IPv6 disciple scream in agony (which is > > probably a good thing anyway). > > I don't understand that agonizing part. I've heard of companies with > so stupid network policies (read: corporate environment) that DHCP6 > with one /112 per department and sequentially assigned addresses > against people's MAC addresses is like a spit in the ocean. Most > people that would make it scream use some automated system for keeping > track of their machines anyway. >
Real IPv6 Fanboys will tell you that anything smaller then /64 is a sin and against the spirit of IPv6. You can not run all the great stuff that makes IPv6 oh so superior. </sacrasm> > >> How would it look like? New ifconfig parameter? > > That was the plan. > > And a new flag to struct in6_ifextra? Any particular ideas about the > loop prevention? > Nope, it will be part of ifnet->if_xflags. You can not prevent loops. If users do stupid things they need to suffer the consequences (that's how people learn). At least you should limit the interfaces from where you accept rtadv packets. > > What is wrong with arp? > > Strange, I asked myself the same question :-) Theo is probably right. > Seems like they just wanted the whole concept separately. Were there > some political reasons for that? > Result? The code is written twice. Bad. But how does it bring down the > whole protocol? Because ND depends on multicast and therefor needs a local scope and because of this we end up with addressing scopes and then we need stateless address assignment on the local scope with duplicate address detection and now you're deep down in the darkest of the dark holes. > > Why rely so massivly on multicast instead of a simple LAN broadcast? > > Because not every machine in the network wants to speak IPv6? There > might be other local stuff (EtherSound is just a bad example) > demanding separate handling over the same L2 network and not to be > disturbed by anything else. > Multicasting ND traffic seems like a relief in huge L2 segments so > common to see these days instead of smaller routed subnets. But again, > the savings are like a spit in the ocean. I have yet to see network so > big that this is actually necessary performance-wise. People claim > there are... > But what's wrong with multicast these days? > Hmm. Please show me a switch that actually does the ND multicast in a non-flooding way. By default most multicast is treated like broadcast and is flooded all over the place. So there is no gain for a hell lot of pain. There is nothing wrong with mutlicast where multicast is needed but neighbor discovery (aka address resolution) is not one of those cases. Sure the theory sounds sexy but in reality it is just painful. > > These two things are partially responsible for the failure of IPv6. > > Failure? I don't know about America, but here in central Europe it > finally seems to be deploying well. And wait for China. (yes, I know > it's more like intranet, but they probably don't want to separate too > much) It is a forced deployment and it is only possible because many things implied with IPv6 got killed. It is funny that all those things that should never ever be needed in IPv6 are suddenly implemented (best example dhcp6). > > There is more political nonsense but on the technical side it is the thing > > that makes IPv6 so stupidly complex. > > Again, I don't know about any political stuff (pointers?) but some of > the complexity surely is unnecessary. However it seems to be too late > to complain :-( As an example of political nonsense look at what it took to be able to get PI IPv6 space. -- :wq Claudio
