IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 15 July 2017 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B885129AA8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q5z1ZNtpjTYS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BE1F1276AF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q86so60530754pfl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=K7WKbkGAmqORknM/4ndXL5T2hRZ7GkSpDgmF8/hmSSM=; b=EAFNgMCiT6+9G0MBgr2e3xeAwSaPKexlBjG45LEOaH50zJKPvc3YaubzL1y4RPRXPi 7MndD3mqX3RMWQ8WmlfpibTNMQvWeI008MA2I3Zzl0KcyWVL4VIb9d+SabgH0UFdw9J6 AsOTtzbrw1bgneWQ/e96aS3Mle7R7VP5OrrKUFTUZneESD5vPzAaI82gqHSFhngusg0F oERqkP8uQz3g4xdVl0hiaStveYmT2MxHoKe/4MvD8zfs+IAjSBSO1x3U3xPXy76oAQKh eVrV7nVKmLddshBwcmRHA+x1RT5epCyeP89WuOSYn62Fmwfvr5R6M94yEJ/7rBlT/U+t /m8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K7WKbkGAmqORknM/4ndXL5T2hRZ7GkSpDgmF8/hmSSM=; b=YsypB9e7oCVWxa/uLAQo4ckoBI/nq1OSO9NDazLRG2Uybcw7jNuL+2oxIlBVu2i55Z pMdPVQjC9oBXguFY1Ze8bbFnufQAFLkBgnCnVLCjcxFdVSOSbGAAmCvh3dLS/75XDgUf Sg2RqtnkZL0ORsVE3gS79fb3V8sWiWEGNPPSPM+2aBdrsJ6unPLC068e8lZpLIly5f6O e6fdD5C3HSFWCAUaAUSqfO4t80Vkdo9/6aeIGn/ntQs524rJG6BZcRcDdu+zOHKQBkXV Pn2+exr92zDnVp8qWnsS+0syIlxt8baPkelGUNiEP4MDVmNbJVlDvfOY9kkbVF3bzxk7 kqwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110vYfFtj0D05VXKCJlkNpZOkoZahYS5UvjxO5lj5GhoT4ifBesY CQ16XqjDSG/fQUjC
X-Received: by 10.84.132.44 with SMTP id 41mr23508211ple.204.1500158516865; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (69.21.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q29sm33732032pfg.11.2017.07.15.15.41.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c6fd2fd@gmail.com> <m1dWNIL-0000FpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3d2f1182-ec 19-959e-a63f-ad0d316bbacf@gmail.com> <BBC09C3B-BBA7-4B40-A44C-D6D7FB306314@employees.org> <596A8A5 2.9030108@foobar.org> <FCEE7BF1-A276-4243-B9CC-FE2BDE25183C@employees.org> <596A95B7.6000408@foobar.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <6a23ce43-89c3-0b37-a2da-70d40ba48b53@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:41:51 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <596A95B7.6000408@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CuKZZqrNxdnbiMXv4i0sdKuBaqc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 22:41:59 -0000

On 16/07/2017 10:22, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Ole Troan wrote:
>> This a protocol problem. DAD is built with the assumption that
>> physical links are reliable. 20% packet loss for multicast is common
>> on wifi...
> 
> most protocols will croak at 20% packet loss.  If wifi cannot support
> multicast properly, then this is an 802.11 problem rather than a problem
> with DAD or any of the many other bits of ipv6 that depend on moderately
> reliable multicast.	

I'm curious. If DAD has that problem, why doesn't Neighbor Discovery
have an equally bad problem?

BTW, Ole is correct. While testing the GRASP prototype at the last IETF,
we discovered a high loss rate for LL multicast on the network.
However, it wasn't primarily due to WiFi. It was due to intentional
multicast throttling in the switches:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/g4SUu-Bhkew-54hiJF1VPP8tfcQ

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email