Pascal;
>>Broadcast over the domain is a lot less reliable than unicast.
> I'm not sure that the question is whether ND is good or poor, OSPFv3 is
> good or poor, etc... All these protocols have proven their qualities in
> the context they were designed for.
Though OSPF has its own problems, let's not discuss them here.
As for ND, what, do you think, is the context for which ND
was designed?
I recognize that ND is fine for 3Mbps Ethernet segment
containing 1000 immobile hosts, which will takes minutes
to boot.
However, with 100Mbps Ethernet segment with 10 hosts which
boot quickly and move frequently, which is a common context
today, ND is already poor.
Our goal is to run IP over various link types as efficiently
as possible.
Our non-goal is to have a single mechanism to run IP over
various link types ignoring link specific properties.
> On the other hand, radios open a new world of problems,
So, you are agreeing with me that radio is not a context for
which ND was designed. Right?
To me, WLAN happens to be a good example to show that ND is
a bad idea.
> some of them
> specific to the type of radio, which prevents them from being
> efficiently abstracted as classical broadcast media. The link
> availability is generally much poorer than classical links (even WAN).
> The bandwidth is changing rapidly, the error rate is several orders of
> magnitude worse then usual, the connectivity is at best of the
> many-to-many type etc...
Most of your concerns are not an issue at all for best effort IP.
> For MIPv6 and DNA, we have a set of problems addressed at 802.21 about
> the visibility of the various potential peers and the control of the
> radio by L3. There's a lot of activity around what's being called the
> radio layer 2.5;
No, thank you. There is no such thing as layer 2.5
> Should we change all the upper layer protocols, all the
> radios,
No. All we need are link specific mechanisms to run IP.
It is called "IP over XXX", not layer 2.5.
> Another aspect of this problem is ethernet itself. ND over a broadcast
> medium is not at its best in terms of performance for DNA related
> functionalities, such as getting an address.
"stateless autoconfiguration" is, of course, a wrong thing to do.
But, you are rather off topic.
> In many radio cases, the closest abstraction is to be found on serial
> links. .11 APs are a hub and spoke model,
11 APs are 11 APs.
We don't need further abstractions to design IP over 11 APs.
> right problem. Sorry about that. It's not even IPv6-over-foo. It's more
It's your problem of insisting on layer 2.5.
It's simply IP over XXX.
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
