Re: IPv6 broadcast

Well, then its not semantics, it's syntaxis.

It's amazing how much traction have empty arguments. I've seen no course
on IPv6 that have bold "no more broadcast" arguments as one of the v6
improvements. I guess this is "projection": everyone "knows" that
broadcasts are a bad thing, so not having them is sure a good thing :)

-Carlos

Brian McGahan @ 11/04/2013 13:12 -0300 dixit:
> It's just semantics. Since all hosts join FF02::1, then it's effectively the same as 255.255.255.255. Some portions of ICMP ND still use this "broadcast" address, such as unsolicited neighbor advertisements, which are like gratuitous ARPs in IPv4.
>
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security), CCDE #2013::13
> bmcgahan_at_INE.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Carlos G Mendioroz
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> To: Cisco certification
> Subject: IPv6 broadcast
>
> There is none. :)
> But we do have the all nodes mcast then.
>
> Anybody care to comment what the real difference is here ?
> The only one I find is that some protocols that used to work using broadcast, most notably ARP, now do not.
>
> Comments ?
> --
> Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net