Pascal;
>>Though OSPF has its own problems, let's not discuss them here.
> I did not introduce OSPF to the discussion there's a common struggle to
> adapt to the radio link.
Let me explain the history.
Once upon a time, there was people believing that the world is
covered by an ATM network as a single link and the global
Internet can work only over it.
Thus, many protocol abandoned the CATENET model and assumed there
are a lot of hosts on a single link.
As it was advertised that, over ATM, broadcast does not but multicast
does work, many protocol used multicast.
IPv6 and OSPF are the examples.
There were common struggles to adapt to ATM link.
The reality is that there is no ATM and ATM does not support
multicast.
Assuming small link, the CATENET model, we can and should have
simply use point to point unicast connections (with TCP, if
reliability is required, and with modified timing if quick
response is required) instead of multicast.
> If 802.11 was successfully emulating an Ethernet I would say yes.
Broadcast over 802.11 is much less reliable than that over Ethernet.
PERIOD.
>>However, with 100Mbps Ethernet segment with 10 hosts which
>>boot quickly and move frequently, which is a common context
>>today, ND is already poor.
> Agreed.
Thank you.
>>Our goal is to run IP over various link types as efficiently
>>as possible.
> Note your contradiction: the problem you address here is to improve ND's
> perf regardless of the link type.
No. Even ARP is better than ND that there is no point to improve
ND. Just abandon it.
> I egree we can make that a separate
> discussion, but then state your problem like "ND v.s. mobility" as
> opposed to "ND over radio".
There is no point to say ND. It's simple "IP over radio" or,
more specifically, "IP over WLAN".
>>To me, WLAN happens to be a good example to show that ND is
>>a bad idea.
>
> Maybe because the ethernet abstraction is unfit in the first place :)
In the first place, ND strongly dependent on the ethernet
abstraction and can not be expected to be useful on all
the other link types.
>>Most of your concerns are not an issue at all for best effort IP.
> These concerns impact the way you decide to model the radio link. It's
> all advocating for serial. In which case your ND problems are very
> different. You may need to look at it from a broader perspective.
With my broader perspective, there is no ND, thus, no ND problems.
>>No, thank you. There is no such thing as layer 2.5
>
>
> Try "layer 2.5" under google.
Try "abstract nonsense" under google.
> Obviously since you refuse to consider an higher perspective. This is
> why I mentioned OSPF in the beginning of the mail. You'll discover
> you're wrong on that. A new link type impacts everything at L3, because
> it has to be abstracted everywhere.
The new link type was ATM large clound.
>>We don't need further abstractions to design IP over 11 APs.
>
> Who's we?
Anyone seriously considering to have IP over 11 APs.
>>It's simply IP over XXX.
>
> Is this that simple? It's not only IP address resolution and forwarding,
> it's also IP routing.
You should study the history on how IP over NBMA damaged the
routing architecture to develop NHRP.
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
