-----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:21 PM To: David Miller Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
David Miller wrote:
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
-----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
... that a very crowded train arrives at a station and all the smart
Your own example --- phones of passengers try to connect to APs ... IPv4 has a train load of devices unicasting and retransmitting all the dropped packets, where an IPv6 multicast RA allows all the devices to configure based on reception of a single packet. Therefore IPv4 is "suboptimal" in its abuse of the air link which could have been used for real application traffic instead of being wasted on device configuration. Thus by extension using your logic it is not operational. Just because you personally want IPv6 to be nothing more than IPv4 in every aspect is no reason to troll the nanog list and create confusion that causes others to delay their IPv6 deployment. Your complaints about IPv6 behavior on wifi ignore the point that IPv6 ND behavior was defined before or in parallel as wifi was defined by a different committee. There will always be newer L2 technologies that arrive after an L3 protocol is defined, and the behavior of the L3 will be 'suboptimal' for the new L2. When the issue is serious enough to warrant documentation, addendum documents are issued. When it is simply a matter of personal preference, it is hard to get enough support to get those documents published. Tony