valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> And, if RA is obsoleted, which is a point of discussion, there
>>> is no reason to keep so bloated ND only for address resolution.
>
>> By who? Sources please.
>> A few people on NANOG complaining about RA is pretty far from deprecation of
>> RA.
>
> Especially when some of the biggest IPv6 networks out there are still using
> it pretty heavily.
That's not a valid counter argument against people who
found problems in certain environment.
IPv6, as is, might work well under some environment assumed by
IPng/IPv6 WG, a committee. The environment may be large.
However, as the committee made so many wrong assumptions such as:
All the link layers were similar to PPP, Ethernet or ATM
ATM was not broadcast capable but multicast capable
Network configuration was mostly stationary
Multicast was reliable
Scale of multicast was not large
ICMP packet too big won't be filtered
A site was single homed or, if not, all the global prefixes
was working
IPv6 does not work well in many environments.
In this case, the following statement in RFC1883:
If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than
6 seconds),
is the wrong assumption which made RA annoying.
Masataka Ohta
