[141957] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jun 14 18:30:17 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vw21wlkgtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:10 -0700
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:00:22 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>> You would need an AWFUL lot of hosts for this to add up to a few =
100pps (or even 10pps) of multicast traffic.
>=20
> You're missing the point... most WAPs are horrible with multicast. It =
doesn't matter if it's v4 or v6, at L2, multicast is multicast.
>=20
> At 100pps the WAP disappears from the network. "It's dead, Jim!" In =
many cases, a single multicast packet is enough to disrupt traffic flow =
as the AP stops to fire the multicast frame, individually, at each =
associated peer.
>=20
> As others have pointed out, IPv6 uses multicast all over the place. =
DHCPv6 is just one of many sources.
>=20
> All we're saying is DHCPv6 should be like DHCPv4... have a backoff =
period and eventually give up entirely. (yes, there are v4 agents that =
continue to try, i.e. restart every 5min, etc.)
Dude... I said that from the beginning.
Point is that DHCPv6 isn't going to be the thing that pushes your AP =
over the edge.
Owen
