2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com>: > 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. >> 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? > 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? > 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? > 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) > 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 :-( -- Martin Pelikan
