Hi Masataka, Greg, and Pekka,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Because of its bloated set of features, I think ND hopeless.
and Pekka Savola wrote:
But while IPv6 over WLAN may not be fully optimal, as it requires
link-layer acknowledgements of multicast packets, I think many already
deem it to work to a *suff
George Gross;
> Reliable Minimum Spanning Tree (RMST). RMST is a unicast-based alternative
> to multicast flooding.
The basic strategy is to use frequent beacon to advertise
exsistence of entities with optional piggy-backed information
and use unicast to exchange further information.
For infrast
Pekka Savola;
> There is only marginal value in
> ND using multicast (compared to broadcast), as the typical number of
> nodes per link is so low that broadcast storms are not a real problem.
I'm afraid you use the term "broadcast storm" incorrectly
(the broadcast storm is huge number of broadcas
Christian Huitema;
> The reliance of ND on multicast is indeed questionable. Some networks
> support multicast poorly. As Masataka points out in his message,
> multicast does not play well with CSMA-CA networks, where transmission
> reliability relies on frame-level ACK. We could also mention the
Erik Nordmark;
> In this mode the hosts would send all packets to a default router
> and the router has the option to redirect the host to the on-link link-layer
> address. Thus the only nodes multicasting NS messages would be the routers.
NS with link multicast over congested WLAN is a lot less
George Gross;
Hi,
> There have been several reliable multicast mechanisms discussed on MANET,
Reliable multicast works over mostly reliable multicast transport.
However, in this case of congested WLAN, multicast/broadcast
infrastructure is totally unreliable.
Mohacsi Janos;
> I think it is very useful. The DHCP is very heavy in some environment.
ND is very heavy in some MIPv6 environment.
Note that I am no DHCP lover and I know DHCP suffer from WLAN.
> Sorry Masataka, but you are mixing autoconfiguraiton and neighbor
> discovery.
Say it to Bob Hind
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>I know ND is wrong. That is, I know it is wrong to have generic
>>link protocols ignoring link specific properties and has been
>>pondering on how such protocols suffer.
> I think ND is not wrong.
ND is wrong, because it was designed to be applicable to all the
link types.
Hi,
Your question has been answered hereunder:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
H:\>ipconfig
Windows IP Configuration
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
Co
