IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Tue Jun 12 09:25:45 UTC 2012

On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 17:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Errrrr, do you want to say MLD noise is not a problem?

I did not say or imply that MLD noise is (or is not) a problem.

I took issue with the idea that DAD traffic - the specific kind of
traffic mentioned by the original poster - was likely to exceed ARP
traffic.

> But, MLD packets must go to all routers.

As I understand it, DAD is not MLD and does not itself cause any MLD
traffic. The MLD that happens around the same time as DAD happens
anyway, as the node adds itself to all-link-local-nodes and its own
solicited-node-multicast group. Except in that DAD is NDP, and both NDP
and MLD use ICMPv6 as their transport, DAD has nothing to do with MLD?

You might be right that MLD is noisy, but I don't think that has
anything to do with the original discussion.

> : I've seen links with up to 15k devices where ARP represented
> : a significant part of the link usage, but most weren't (yet) IPv6.
> 
> MLD noise around a router is as bad as ARP/ND noise.

Possibly true, but that's another discussion. And is the MLD traffic as
bad *everywhere* on the link, as ARP is? I strongly suspect not, because
the payoff for MLD is a lessening of traffic going to all nodes.

> That's how IPv6 along with SLAAC is totally broken.

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes "totally" broken.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687