Hi Vidya, [ cutting down the NetLMM-specific discussion which I think is out-of-scope for INT area, and CCing INT area only ]
Thanks for your comments On Monday 07 August 2006 20:28, Narayanan, Vidya wrote: > While it is true that IPv6 allows multiple subnets per link and has > no requirement about all nodes being aware of all prefixes, it is > intended for routers on a link supporting multiple prefixes. > So, the number of prefixes that you would actually see on a link in > practice would be much more limited than the number of prefixes you > are likely to have with the prefix-per-MN case. I miss the point you're making above. Are you saying that one link would not scale to the number of prefixes implied by the prefix-per-MN approach? > This does work fine for point-to-point links such as cellular > links, but for the general broadcast media, it is rather strange. > It seems to me that taking broadcast/multicast capability away from > a medium that natively supports the functionality is placing a > serious limitation on such links. I don't know if it specifically > breaks something w.r.t IPv6, but it definitely takes away some > powerful functionality. Agree that it takes away some functionality, most notably the possibility for two MNs attached to the same link to communicate directly (i.e. not via the router) using global unicast addresses, because they would not have the same subnet prefix. It would however still be possible to use IP multicast as usual on such a link, as the constraint involves only global unicast addresses. And you don't see anything specific breaking IPv6 addressing model, right? Best, --julien _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
