> For instance, IPv6's NDP is built on actual IPv6 packets (ICMPv6), rather than some spoofed IP-lookalike thing. No layering violation, and, thanks to multicasting, no need to dump a bunch of broadcast traffic on the layer 2 network.

Only if the L2 network actually supports L2-multicast. Ethernet doesn't, except if your switches are intelligent enough. With cheap ethernet switches, multicast will be simulated by broadcast.

And actually, you can never avoid a layering violation. The only thing that NDP avoids is filling in the source/destination IP portions with placeholders. In NDP, you fill the destination with some multicast IPv6 address. But that is window dressing. You still need to know that this L3-multicast IPv6 address corresponds to a L2-multicast MAC address (or just do L2 broadcast). The NDP source you fill with an L3 IPv6 address that is directly derived from your L2 MAC address. And you still get back a MAC address for each IPv6 address and have to keep both in a table. So there are still tons of layering violations where the L2 addresses either have direct 1:1 correspondences to L3 addresses, or you have to keep L2/L3 translation tables and L3 protocols where the L3 part needs to know which L2 protocol it is running on, otherwise the table couldn't be filled.

> Only if the L2 network actually supports L2-multicast. Ethernet doesn't, except if your switches are intelligent enough. With cheap ethernet switches, multicast will be simulated by broadcast.

True, but outside bottom-barrel switches, any switch that's not super old should support multicast, no?

Regarding the rest of your comment, I really don't see how all those things count as layering violations. Yes, there is tight coupling (well, more like direct correspondence) between l2 and l3 addresses. However, these multicast addresses are actual addresses furnished by IPv6; nodes answer on these addresses. Basically, the fact that there is semantic correspondence between l2 and l3 is basically an implementation detail. Whereas ARP even needs its own EtherType!

And, yes, nodes need to keep state. But why is that relevant to whether or not this is a layering violation? When two layers are separate, they need to be combined somewhere ("gluing the layers together"). The fact that the glue is stateless seems irrelevant. But again, I'm just a sysadmin.