Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-elkins-v6ops-multicast-virtual-nodes

[Nalini Elkins <[e-mail]>]

>> If I have a 1,000 nodes under my control, then that is how many that 
>> should be in my AD and BD.  IPv6 allows for large subnets so why not?

>Because it's a bad idea. IPv4 allows for subnetting at /22 for your 1000 
>nodes, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

This needs a lot more discussion.  It is a much more complex topic than
can be handled in a few sentences.  We will do another draft (will have to be 
for the Dallas IETF as time is getting short now for Hawaii) on node
isolation and subnetting.   We can discuss at much longer length then.

If you would be willing to, we would certainly appreciate some private
feedback in advance of our posting.  We can send you our draft as we
have it.


>> On Linux, I believe when you do a PING, it is continuous until 
>> intentionally stopped.  So, doing a Ping to FF02::1 from a Linux machine 
>> will create havoc without having ill intent.  That is, accidentally.

>Absolutely, and it's all due to the decision to put a lot of nodes in the 
>same L2 domain which has been known for 20-30 years to be bad design and 
>can cause the exact problems you're describing. If you ping the network 
>broadcast address on IPv4 you get the exact same thing, I don't see why 
>you blame IPv6 for this?

I am not blaming IPv6.  In fact, I am an IPv6 bigot and have been preaching
conversion to IPv6 for quite a few years.  (I might add, much to the dismay 
of those who have been cornered by me at various events!)

What we want to do is to point out where the pitfalls might be in the migration
to IPv6 so that people who implement will have as smooth a path as possible so 
that adoption becomes widespread.




Nalini