[RFC] Multicast and IPv6 Link Local Addresses
jch at irif.fr
Sat Apr 8 19:15:04 CEST 2017
> - Scalability: I agree with what George said. Broadcast does not scale
> nicely, and IPv6 multicast is intended to help scaling things by
> reaching exactly the node that need to get a copy of a particular
Not necessarily. IPv6 link-local multicast replaces IPv4 link-local
broadcast. Implementing link-local multicast as broadcast, while
suboptimal, is good enough to get IPv6 to work.
> - Multicast is not the everyday use case,
That's IPv4 thinking. In IPv6, multicast is a basic, compulsory part of
the protocol. A number of very basic IPv6 protocols fail to work if
link-local multicast is not functional.
See the IPv6 over NMBA (MARS, not LANE) specification for the kind of
horrors that are required to work around link layers that don't support
> - IPv6 link-local addressing: For me it is a perfect example for "the
> right amount of magic". It would make (at least my) life so much
> easier. Filling the neighbor cache would require WireGuard to provide
> (simulated or real) solicited node multicast addresses routing, right?
Yes, IPv6 neighbour discovery is one of those protocols that rely on
More information about the WireGuard