[156465] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big Temporary Networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Tue Sep 18 16:51:35 2012
In-Reply-To: <5058DA13.90000@foobar.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:50:53 -0400
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
>> IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
>> router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
>> advertisement.
>
> You mean it has one extra potential failure mode in situations where radio
> retransmission doesn't deal with the packet loss - which will cause RA to
> retry. "Fall down" is a slight overstatement.
Potayto, potahto. Like I said, I have no interest in defending IPv6.
But I'm very interested in how to implement an IPv6 network that's as
or more reliable than the equivalent IPv4 network. That makes me
interested in the faults which get in the way.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
