Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>So, as a short term solution, I'd like to suggest to use ARP,
>>not ND, over WLAN.
> That is one way.
>
> In fact there are many ways.
Of course. However, as a short term solution, we don't have much
options.
Note that the solution should be conservative en
> If you have followed the discussion closely, you should have
> noticed that ARP is a lot better than ND in a typical
> environment where WLANs are used as leaf of the Internet.
>
> So, as a short term solution, I'd like to suggest to use ARP,
> not ND, over WLAN.
>
> As a long term solution, I
Mohacsi Janos;
>>To me, WLAN happens to be a good example to show that ND is
>>a bad idea.
> Please be constructive.
First, we should discuss the problem to analyze the problem.
Then, we can be constructive.
Note also that, IMHO, ND is a destructive protocol discouraging
development of link sp
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> Our goal is to run IP over various link types as efficiently
> as possible.
>
> Our non-goal is to have a single mechanism to run IP over
> various link types ignoring link specific properties.
>
> > On the other hand, radios open a new world of pro
>
> I think that the Point-to-Point idea has some merits,
> but the applicability is not general.
>
> I think that if we're going to keep the ethernet-like
> nature of WLAN (it is a deployed base) then the
> hosts which are aware of their performance issues
> need to respond to them.
>
> I'll se
Hi Pascal,
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
In any discovery this is going to be a problem, since
any discovery will require multicast at the MAC layer.
Note that if the hub and spoke quality of the 802.11 (enterprise mode)
network was not lost on the way of emulating ethernet, then the
discovery
Hi Masakata,
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
Server)
> Hi, Greg;
>
> >>> If 802.11 was successfully emulating an Eth
> In any discovery this is going to be a problem, since
> any discovery will require multicast at the MAC layer.
Note that if the hub and spoke quality of the 802.11 (enterprise mode)
network was not lost on the way of emulating ethernet, then the
discovery could happen in an alternate fashion, a
Greg;
> I think there is an issue of mis-communication
> here which prevents us from moving beyond a certain
> point in the conversation.
Seems to be.
> I'm pretty sure that ND is critical for such devices
Why?
> in order
> to create a common link-layer address resolution mechanism
> regardles
Hi, Greg;
>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.
>>>Actually multicast isn't, if the multicast packet
>>>is only going toward the AP.
So, you wanted to say "only going to the A
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
Hi, Greg;
>>> 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.
> Actually multicast isn't, if the multicast packet
> is only going toward the AP.
Apparently, you misunderstand that the problem w
Hi Masakata,
I think there is an issue of mis-communication
here which prevents us from moving beyond a certain
point in the conversation.
I understand what you're saying about different links having
different properties, and that individual hosts (on different
media) should take advantage of them.
Hi Masakata
Masataka Ohta wrote:
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.
Actually multicast isn't, if the multicast packet
is only going toward the AP.
Greg
>
> >>Broadcast over the domain is a lot less reliable than unicast.
>
> > I'm not sure that the question is whether ND is good or poor, OSPFv3
is
> > good or poor, etc... All these protocols have proven their qualities
in
> > the context they were designed for.
>
> Though OSPF has its own probl
Pascal;
>>Broadcast over the domain is a lot less reliable than unicast.
> I'm not sure that the question is whether ND is good or poor, OSPFv3 is
> good or poor, etc... All these protocols have proven their qualities in
> the context they were designed for.
Though OSPF has its own problems, let
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Masataka Ohta
> Sent: mardi 15 juin 2004 06:06
> To: Ignatios Souvatzis
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); IPv6 WG; Pekka Savola; Greg
Daley
> Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6
Ignatios Souvatzis;
>>>I think we're straying from the original topic...
>>
>>I think that infrastructure WLAN is point (not all statsions but
>>only the base station) to multipoint one.
> Radio, yes. Network, no. The base station creates the illusion of a
> broadcast domain.
And the problem is
Greg;
Our goal is to let IP run over (almost) all the link types
as efficiently as possible.
Right?
>> DAD?
> Duplicate Address Detection (from rfc2462).
I know. But, we are talking about address resolution, not DAD.
>> Address resolution of ND gives up after three NSes and
>> is not robust.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:12:04AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Greg Daley wrote:
>
> > Hi Pascal,
> >
> > I think we're straying from the original topic...
>
> I think that infrastructure WLAN is point (not all statsions but
> only the base station) to multipoint one.
Radio, yes. Network, no
Hi,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hi,
However, with the current DHCPv6, it means that IP address should
be configured by DHCP with four messages.
I'm not so clear on your intention here, but I'd guess
that Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is OK, if there
is sufficient robustness in the (re)transmission
Hi,
>> However, with the current DHCPv6, it means that IP address should
>> be configured by DHCP with four messages.
>
>
> I'm not so clear on your intention here, but I'd guess
> that Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is OK, if there
> is sufficient robustness in the (re)transmission of
> DA
Hi Greg,
>> Anyway, back to the original topic, how do you think IPv6 hosts
>> should be configured with DNS server addresses?
>>
>> I think you and Pascal are saying it's not ND but PPP. Right?
> Actually, I think that DHCP is better (for recursive DNS
> configuration).
Not so bad.
Though PPP
2004 11:24 pm
> Subject: RE: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
> Server)
>
>
>>Interestingly, part of this pain comes from the decision to provide
>>Ethernet emulation for 802.11, while some practical use cases do not
>>actually require a b
Hi,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hi Greg,
Anyway, back to the original topic, how do you think IPv6 hosts
should be configured with DNS server addresses?
I think you and Pascal are saying it's not ND but PPP. Right?
Actually, I think that DHCP is better (for recursive DNS
configuration).
Not so bad.
Th
Hi Masakata-san,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Greg Daley wrote:
Hi Pascal,
I think we're straying from the original topic...
I think that infrastructure WLAN is point (not all statsions but
only the base station) to multipoint one.
Anyway, back to the original topic, how do you think IPv6 hosts
should
Hi Pascal,
I think we're straying from the original topic...
- Original Message -
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:24 pm
Subject: RE: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
Server)
> Interest
> Hi,
> unreliable flooding of control/routing packets is a long
standing
> problem in the MANET working group [1]. Recently the MANET working
group
> formed a design team that will tackle this problem among others that
arise
> when extending OSPF for wireless media. AFAIK, their design wil
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: jeudi 10 juin 2004 12:15
> To: Masataka Ohta; Greg Daley; Pekka Savola
> Cc: IPv6 WG
> Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
Server)
>
> Hi Masataka, Greg, and Pe
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.
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 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.
>
> >>The solution has been never bother to have sta
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Mohacsi Janos;
>
> > I think it is very useful. The DHCP is very heavy in some environment.
>
> ND is very heavy in some MIPv6 environment.
I agree.
>
> Say it to Bob Hinden and others who wrote things like
>
>3.1.1 Neighbor Discovery Extension -
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 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
> infrastruc
> The only standard solution so far is to treat these networks as NBMA,
> i.e. on the router for ND. This is not satisfactory, because it places a
> lot of burden on the router and also because it leaves out ad hoc
> networks.
There is a middle ground since ND can be configured to have the router
> >>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.
The
Hi,
unreliable flooding of control/routing packets is a long standing
problem in the MANET working group [1]. Recently the MANET working group
formed a design team that will tackle this problem among others that arise
when extending OSPF for wireless media. AFAIK, their design will be
IP-v
Hi Pekka,
I'm not sure where this may lead, but...
- Original Message -
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2004 11:05 pm
Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
Server)
> Tailed down mailing lists to just IPv6 WG
Tailed down mailing lists to just IPv6 WG list..
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> ND is wrong, because it was designed to be applicable to all the
> link types.
>
> ND deployed multicast only because some ATM guy said NBMA was
> capable of not broadcast but multic
Hi Masataka,
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Dear all;
>
> The problem is rather generic than DNS configuration. But...
>
> 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
Dear all;
The problem is rather generic than DNS configuration. But...
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 just recently noticed that WLAN (802.11*) is not very goo
47 matches
Mail list logo
