Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6

Sam Stickland sam at spacething.org
Sun Sep 14 17:45:31 UTC 2014

Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could
then all be directly replied, eliminating broadcast gratuitous arps. If the
switches don't support the protocol they would default to flooding the
discovery requests.

It seems to me that so many network are caused because of the inability to
change the host mechanisms.


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reading the article what occurs to me is:
> >
> > IPv4 requires a certain amount of administrative personnel overhead.
> >
> > It's relatively low which is certainly one reason for the success of
> > IPv4. People are expensive so any new, pervasive technology will be
> > judged at least in part on its personnel requirements.
> >
> > I'd go so far as to say that administering large IPv4 networks grows
> > in personnel roughly as the log of the number of nodes.
> surely this depends a LOT on the quality of the folk doing this job
> and their foresight in automating as much as possible, no? (probably
> this point isn't for debate, but the point is any network can be run
> badly)
> > If what this is telling us, or warning us, is that IPv6 networks
> > require higher personnel costs then that could become a big issue.
> is this a reflection of 'new technology' to the users (network folk)
> in question?
> What in ipv6 networking is inherently 'more people required' than ipv4
> networking?
> >
> > Particularly among management where they've become used to a few to
> > several people in a team running the heart of quite large networks.
> >
> > What if IPv6 deployment doubles or triples that personnel requirement
> > for the same quality of administration?
> this sounds, to me, like: "People need training or comfort with :
> instead of . in 'ip address' stuff..." (and other similar differences
> between how v4 and v6 operate at scale)
> > Does anyone know of any studies along these lines? My guess is that
> > there isn't enough data yet.
> that sounds reasonable.

More information about the NANOG mailing list