Greg Daley wrote:
Multicast or Broadcast are necessary if we want generic
address discovery in IPv4/6 networks.
True.
> Obviously we'll have problems
with MAC level acknowledgements for messages received by multiple
hosts.
Not necessarily. Discovery by beacons repeatedly broadcast works
just fine, if they are sent frequently enough.
RFC 2461 (as described by a recent individual submission of mine)
allow Neighbour cache entries to be created with reliable
802.11 MAC transport (unicast toDS=0,toDS=1, multicast toDS=1)
where there is only one MAC recipient in the contention domain.
I'm afraid your mistake is that you are still insisting on a
generic adaptation approach of ND.
The point is that ND approach is invalidated by the world most
popular (maybe even more than Ether) link technology.
To let IP work over various link technologies, the adaptation
mechanisms MUST be different link technology by link technology.
ND assumes not only that broadcast/multicast is reliable but
also that we can wait several minuites before using terminals,
both of which was valid 20 years ago with immobile workstations
connected to Ether. And, there are other hidden, now invalid,
assumptions.
> Since Ohta-san mentioned MIPv6 here, the router becomes the most
> relevant peer for neighbour discovery.
Such approach works if terminals moves very slowly, which
is unlikely the case with MIPv6.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf