To come back on the discussion why mcast matters for IPv6 while bcast does
not for IPv4:
- IPv6 uses heavily mcast while in IPv4 (ND is quite chatty)
- IPv6 uses many more addresses than IPv4 (hence even more chatty)
A couple of us running very large (more than 10000 STA) WiFi network have
experimented issues on dual-stack WiFi deployment cause by this chattiness
of IPv6 over mcast. (and not so much about the packet loss as far as I can
remember but more about wasting airtime to transmit 'tons of mcast'), and,
noticing as a side effect than battery life was impacted.
-éric
On 7/08/15 09:36, "homenet on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek"
<homenet-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
wrote:
>> However, I do think that 802.11 needs to point out to its members that
>>if
>> they don't implement assured multicast replication, IP doesn't work
>> properly.
>
>That's an overstatement. IPv6 works just fine over 802.11, it just
>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.
>
>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.").
>
>-- Juliusz
>
>_______________________________________________
>homenet mailing list
>homenet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
