A Farewell to ARPs: IPv4 Service on IPv6-Only Networks

(labs.ripe.net)

50 points | by speckx a day ago ago

7 comments

  • throw0101d a day ago ago

    ARP is not an issue at smaller scales, but at larger ones it can cause problems. Reducing the L2 broadcast 'blast radius' is one of the touted benefits of EVPN (which use may be worth considering once you get above ~20 switches):

    * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_z37Rq7qgY

  • inigyou 21 hours ago ago

    Saw this in IETF already but it's not clear why it's useful especially as the old path still needs to be implemented for compatibility. TFA is obviously LLMslop, which is very disappointing from RIPE.

    • throw0101d 5 hours ago ago

      For corporate networks, where you control what devices get onto non-guest VLANs/subnets, you'll have better control over devices that support this new functionality. See for example Google's work on removing IPv4 on corporate networks:

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTRsi6mbAWM

      Even in organizations where IT cannot control devices, like universities which are largely student-BYOD, IPv6 take-up can reach 80%:

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-liebzcOMmkm&t=10m

      "Obviously" in what way?

      • inigyou 3 hours ago ago

        But why is this little hack advantageous over dual-stack? Advanced switches already don't forward ARPs they can handle locally.

    • _bernd 10 hours ago ago

      I don't get your question? If you use a /32 then there is no broadcast address and no ARP. And the /32 are then announced by your internal routing protocol.

  • alhidade a day ago ago

    > That's real, but it understates the problem.

    It's all so tiresome.

    • illliillll 7 hours ago ago

      What drives people to post blatant slop like this?