> On Aug 8, 2015, at 4:36 AMPDT, Juliusz Chroboczek
> wrote:
>
>> What you are suggesting here is heresy. You are saying that the basic
>> assumption made 35 years ago, Layering, doesn't work. What a surprise.
>
> No. What this says is that strict layering has a performance cost, and
> a wa
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I'm confused again. PIO lifetimes are on the order of hours, or even
days, while unsolicited RAs are sent every 60s. Plus there's nothing
preventing you from sending them more often.
Andrew Yourtchenko is a lot better than I am at explaining thi
Mikael is correct;
IPv6 mechanisms are different.
SLAAC adds broadcasts that are not present in IPv4, MLD report then NS DAD
then, sometimes and though it is not required by the spec, NA(O).
IPv6 nodes tend to create multiple addresses, many of which are temporary for
privacy reasons. So the a
As Alia points out, because of increasing areas where there was overlap between
our work, we started coordinating more closely a few years ago. We maintain a
list of areas that we have identified as benefiting from coordination.
We have teleconference meetings 3 times a year which include a di
> I'd imagine the amount of multicast for IPv6 is more than 10x (just
> guessing) larger unless mitigation is put in place,
I'm perhaps confused, but I don't see why. ARP is somewhat loosely
specified, so it's difficult to say for sure without checking the
implementations, but I'd expect ND to be
> What you are suggesting here is heresy. You are saying that the basic
> assumption made 35 years ago, Layering, doesn't work. What a surprise.
No. What this says is that strict layering has a performance cost, and
a way to recover some of this performance is to organise carefully
controlled l
