Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Masatoshi Enomoto <masatoshi-e () is naist jp>]

Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>: 

> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> > > Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
> > > as ND, will suffer.
> >
> > ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
> > network - in your humble opinion?
>
> Because, with IPv4:
>
>       1) broadcast/multicast from a STA attacked to an AP is
>       actually unicast to the AP and reliably received by the
>       AP (and relayed unreliably to other STAs). That is, a
>       broadcast ARP request from the STA to the AP is reliably
>       received by the AP.
>
>       2) the AP knows MAC and IP addresses of STAs
>
>       3) ARP and DHCP replies are usually unicast
>
> ARP and DHCP usually work.
>
> For an unusual case of ARP for other STAs, collisions do
> increase initial latencies, but as refreshes are attempted
> several times, there will be no latter latencies.
>
> OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
> for DAD, for example.
>
> Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
> which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
>
>                                                       Masataka Ohta