Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>:
>Nick Hilliard wrote: > >>> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such >>> as ND, will suffer. >> >> ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan >> network - in your humble opinion? > >Because, with IPv4: > > 1) broadcast/multicast from a STA attacked to an AP is > actually unicast to the AP and reliably received by the > AP (and relayed unreliably to other STAs). That is, a > broadcast ARP request from the STA to the AP is reliably > received by the AP. > > 2) the AP knows MAC and IP addresses of STAs > > 3) ARP and DHCP replies are usually unicast > >ARP and DHCP usually work. > >For an unusual case of ARP for other STAs, collisions do >increase initial latencies, but as refreshes are attempted >several times, there will be no latter latencies. > >OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS >for DAD, for example. > >Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large, >which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost. > > Masataka Ohta >
