On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:16:10 -0400, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> The point of /64 is to support automatic configuration and incredibly sparse >> host addressing. >> It is not intended to create stupidly large broadcast domains. > > Several IETF (and NANOG) discussions say otherwise. While current hardware > doesn't handle thousands of hosts, the protocol was designed for a future > where that's not true. (there's a future where *everything* is network > enabled... microwave oven, doorbell, weed whacker, everything.) > Sure, but, that future still doesn't need stupidly large numbers of hosts on a common link.
>> A /22 is probably about the upper limit of a sane broadcast domain, but, >> even with a /22 >> or 1022 nodes max, each sending a packet every 10 seconds you don't get to >> 100s of PPS, >> you get 102.2pps. > > As I said, DHCP isn't the only source of traffic. Setup a 1000 node network > today (just IPv4), and you will see a great deal of broadcast traffic (unless > those nodes aren't doing anything.) With IPv6, it's all multicast (v6 > doesn't have a "broadcast address") hinged on switches filtering the traffic > away from where it doesn't need to be. The all-too-common Best Buy $20 white > box ethernet switch does no multicast filtering at all. Pretty much all > wireless hardware sucks at multicast - period. These are not things that can > be fixed with a simple software update... if the silicon doesn't do it, *it > doesn't do it*. Depends on a number of factors. Yes, there are lots of issues. However, they aren't caused by the small number of additional packets from DHCP. Owen
