Big Temporary Networks

Thu Sep 20 03:33:10 UTC 2012

TJ wrote:

>> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.

> Really?

With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.

In general, as IPv6 was designed to make "ND uber Alles",
not "IP uber Alles", and ND was designed by a committee with
only ATM, Ethernet and PPP in mind, ND can not be an adaptation
mechanism to run IP over various link with link specific
properties.

Thus, even though people only using Ethernet and PPP might
think ND is good enough, a single example of a link is
enough to deny "ND uber Alles".

Though you wrote:

> I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.

it is impossible because it is "probatio diabolica".

Instead, a single counter example is enough to totally
deny "probatio diabolica".

Or, if you need another example on how poorly ND behaves under
some environment, it's timing constraints are specified mostly
in units of "second", not "millisecond", because the IPv6
committee silently assumed that hosts are immobile.

Thus, latency imposed by ND is often too large for links
with quickly moving objects.

Never claim IPv6 operational with your narrowly scoped
experiences, because what you are attempting to do
is "probatio diabolica".

> That is what the ~"IPv6 over Foo" series of
> documents is all about, accommodating those needs ...

Because "ND uber Alles" is impossible, "IPv6 over Foo"
series specifying ND parameters are not helpful.

					Masataka Ohta