NIST IPv6 document
owen at delong.com
Thu Jan 6 19:12:19 CST 2011
This would break dead-neighbor detection, but, I'm not sure that's necessarily
a problem for end hosts at the local router level.
It is touted as one of the IPv6 features, but, I'm not sure how valuable it is as
On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Marcel Plug wrote:
> Perhaps we're reaching the point where we can say "We don't need an ND
> table for a /64 network". If the ethernet MAC is embedded in the IPv6
> address, we don't need to discover it because we already know it. If
> the IPv6 address has been manually configured on a host, perhaps that
> host should now accept traffic directed to the MAC that the lower 64
> bits of the IPv6 address would translate to.
> Perhaps this idea has been discussed somewhere and discarded for its
> flaws, but if not, perhaps it should be :-).
> (First post by the way, go easy on me :-)
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2011 12:26 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>> A bunch of very smart people have worked on IPv6 for a very long
>>> time, and justification for /64's was hashed out at extended length
>>> over the period of years.
>> NDP should have been better designed. It still has the same problems we had
>> with ARP except the address pool has magnified it.
>> Routers should have 1) better methods for keeping ND tables low (and
>> maintaining only valid entries) or 2) better methods for learning valid
>> entries than unsolicited NDP requests.
>> This isn't to say the protocol itself is a waste, but it should have taken
>> in the concerns and developed the mitigation controls necessary as
>> recommendations to the implementers.
More information about the NANOG