Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:18 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2 domain outside of an exchange point.
>
> I've seen such large networks in private industry (and governements, not just the US) several times.  And IPv6 has 
> been designed (poorly, it would now appear) for huge "LAN"s -- LANs are supposed to be /64, after all.
>
> One of them "had" to have such stupid large L2 domains because they used RIP (v1) EVERYWHERE. (all networks had to be 
> /22's)  They made a god aweful mess trying to switch to OSPF, got fined by a three letter regulatory agency, and are 
> probably still running RIPv1 to this day.

The point of /64 is to support automatic configuration and incredibly sparse host addressing.
It is not intended to create stupidly large broadcast domains.

A /22 is probably about the upper limit of a sane broadcast domain, but, even with a /22
or 1022 nodes max, each sending a packet every 10 seconds you don't get to 100s of PPS,
you get 102.2pps.

Owen