nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6
From: Sam Stickland <sam () spacething org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 18:45:31 +0100
Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)? Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could then all be directly replied, eliminating broadcast gratuitous arps. If the switches don't support the protocol they would default to flooding the discovery requests. It seems to me that so many network are caused because of the inability to change the host mechanisms. Sam On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs () world std com> wrote:Reading the article what occurs to me is: IPv4 requires a certain amount of administrative personnel overhead. It's relatively low which is certainly one reason for the success of IPv4. People are expensive so any new, pervasive technology will be judged at least in part on its personnel requirements. I'd go so far as to say that administering large IPv4 networks grows in personnel roughly as the log of the number of nodes.surely this depends a LOT on the quality of the folk doing this job and their foresight in automating as much as possible, no? (probably this point isn't for debate, but the point is any network can be run badly)If what this is telling us, or warning us, is that IPv6 networks require higher personnel costs then that could become a big issue.is this a reflection of 'new technology' to the users (network folk) in question? What in ipv6 networking is inherently 'more people required' than ipv4 networking?Particularly among management where they've become used to a few to several people in a team running the heart of quite large networks. What if IPv6 deployment doubles or triples that personnel requirement for the same quality of administration?this sounds, to me, like: "People need training or comfort with : instead of . in 'ip address' stuff..." (and other similar differences between how v4 and v6 operate at scale)Does anyone know of any studies along these lines? My guess is that there isn't enough data yet.that sounds reasonable.
Current thread:
- Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Ca By (Sep 07)
- Re: Interesting problems with using IPv6 sthaug (Sep 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Scott Weeks (Sep 07)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Dale W. Carder (Sep 08)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Barry Shein (Sep 08)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Christopher Morrow (Sep 08)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Sam Stickland (Sep 14)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Matthew Petach (Sep 14)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Bruce Pinsky (Sep 14)
- Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6 Ca By (Sep 07)