Francis Dupont wrote: > > Could you describe why exactly IPv6 can't run on the (layer 2?) WLAN > > infrastructure? > > That ND extensively, without any valid reason to do so, use > multicast, which is not acknowledged at WLAN L2, means IPv6 > or its ND is unreliable over congested WLAN. If multicast > ND packet is lost by congestion, it is not retransmitted by L2. > > => Masataka san, your argument is right (I saw 40% lost rate > on multicast over IEEE 802.11b) but it applies to IPv4 (ARP > uses broadcast) too... Yes, it does, but not so badly. ARP actually use broadcast for request but not for reply. Moreover, ARP request from terminals to base stations, which are often routers, are unicast at lower L2. So, over WLAN, ARP works a lot better than ND. It should also be noted that, with IPv4, it is natural to have link specific adaptation mechanism for each different link type that it is perfectly fine to have IP over WLAN which is different from IP over Ether. On the other hand, ND, an attempt to have a universal adaptation mechanism ignoring link specific properties, which contradicts with the very basic reason to have "adaptation", is a total failure. It should be noted that MIPv6 is hopelessly tainted by ND. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf