Michael Sinatra wrote:
>> DHCPv6 works over link layers with unreliable multicast
>> better than ND.
>
> You still need ND to provide the link-layer address resolution (i.e. the
> IPv6 equivalent of ARP), even with DHCPv6.
Not necessarily. You can use ARP and DHCPv6 and you don't have
to waste time and power for DAD.
> Moreover, how do you come to
> the conclusion that DHCPv6, which uses multicast for the solicitation,
> is more reliable over links where multicast is unreliable?
DHCPv6 (and ARP) uses a lot less multicast/broadcast than ND.
> FYI, I have been using SLAAC over 802.11 for many years, and have
> supported large 802.11 installations with SLAAC and have never had a
> problem related to "unreliable multicast" on that medium. Other
> problems, yes. But not that one.
That's because your 802.11 is not congested.
Masataka Ohta
