IPv6 "bloat" history

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthubert at cisco.com
Thu Mar 31 12:25:55 UTC 2022

Fun, I had a parallel experience with NEMO that I implemented in IOS. 

But I mostly read the fate of MIP and NEMO as a lack of ask. Which is similar to the lack of desire today for the uplifts we made to IPv6 as a whole, and ND in particular.

Anyway, RPL has a lot to do with what we learned there, including the abstract objective function that yields the metrics you are talking about, typically including things like ETX/ETX^2, RSSI and LQI.

So yes, things that make sense eventually emerge.

Keep safe.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com>
> Sent: jeudi 31 mars 2022 14:10
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com>; Masataka Ohta
> <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 "bloat" history
> On 3/31/22 7:44 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > [heavy sigh]
> >
> > All of these things were well understood circa 1992-93.
> >
> > That's why the original Neighbor Discovery was entirely link state.
> >
> > ND link state announcements handled the hidden terminal problem.
> Also, it almost goes without saying that the original ND tried to handle the
> near-far problem.  For example, where I'm talking to a far away AP streaming
> to the TV in front of me.
> At my home, I've had to wire the TV.  Streaming to the AP, then the AP
> sending the same traffic over the same wireless band to the TV caused lots of
> drops and jitter.
> The near-far problem can be detected and solved.  That's the reason for the
> Metric field.
> Furthermore, one of the messages in this thread mentioned trying to backport
> v6 features to v4.
> We've already been down that road.  IPsec and MobileIP were developed for v6.
> After quitting the v6 project(s), I'd backported both of them to v4.  Like
> v6, then they were assigned to others who ruined them.
> Committee-itis at its worst.

More information about the NANOG mailing list