undefined

points

[-]

> Having both a real address, a link-local address, and a unique local address, and the requirement to use the right one in each circumstance

Only use the real one then (unless you happen to be implementing ND or something)!

> The removal of arp and removal of broadcast, the enforcement of multicast

ARP was effectively only replaced by ND, no? Maybe there are many disadvantages I'm not familiar with, but is there a fundamental problem with it?

> The almost-required removal of NAT

Don't like that part? Don't use it, and do use NAT66. It works great, I use it sometimes!

by simoncion45 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

In fairness, aside from whining about the minority attitude towards NAT [0] the person you're replying to absolutely met your definition of "gratuitous":

  (i.e. anything other than the decision to make a breaking change to address formats and accordingly require adapters)

I (and I expect the fellow you're replying to) believe that if you're going to have to rework ARP to support 128-bit addresses, you might as well come up with a new protocol that fixes things you think are bad about ARP.

And if the fellow you're replying to doesn't know that broadcast is another name for "all-hosts multicast", then he needs to read a bit more.

[0] Several purity-minded fools wanted to pretend that IPv6 NAT wasn't going to exist. That doesn't mean that IPv6 doesn't support NAT... NAT is and has always been a function of the packet mangling done by a router that sits between you and your conversation partner.