Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck () arch bellsouth net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:54:14 -0400


On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:53:17AM -0700, hardie () equinix com wrote:
One reason we've looked at is the ability to seperate multicast
traffic from unicast traffic without having to have seperate physical
media.  In general, it can be used whenever you want to keep some
traffic out of the way of other traffic.  Another possible reason
along those lines for ethernet based exchanges would be allowing jumbo
frames on some VLAN seperate from the basic shared-media exchange.
                              regards,
                                      Ted Hardie

And aside from the other thread that spun off from this about the technological
pro's and con's around mcast, perhaps there's another line of thinking to 
consider...

Having seperate VLANs or otherwise "planes" may help a great deal 
operationally, by being able to introduce a ucastv4, mcastv4, ucastv6, 
mcastv6, etc etc.. place. (as long as you can keep the overhead down of 
actually running the "planes" themselves).  Has anyone gone thru the exercise
of worrying about such a thing/beast?

Cheers,
Chris


(and before anyone flames me for not saying it, imho, the point about jumbo
 frames is moot. no flame intended.)

-- 
Christian Kuhtz                                     Architecture, BellSouth.net
<ck () arch bellsouth net> -wk, <ck () gnu org> -hm                       Atlanta, GA
                                                    "Speaking for myself only."



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault