nanog mailing list archives
Re: Interconnects
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 00:49:52 +0100 (BST)
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST) "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk> wrote:On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:On Fri, 17 May 2002 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do....LINX for example permits very specifically IPv4 only, no multicast including routing protocols etc, no mac broadcasts ie spantree.Doesn't the LINX have a separate LAN for a multicast exchange ? I know that this was set up, but I don't know what it's current status is.
Yep, its a completely separate LAN operated by LINX.. theres a number of members using it. Actually, I'm not one of them.. I was thinking about this today and wondered if people think they are benefiting at all from using multicast exchange points or even just receiving multicast over say a tunnel. I know the benefits of the technology but in reality, today, is anyone using multicast as an ISP and getting something out of it over unicast? Steve
Regards Marshall EubanksI think theres a danger on very large switching fabrics that if youre not specific things will happen that are detrimental to all members.. all major switching problems I know of at LINX were caused by members doing something not permitted by the rules... Just because you -could- do something without the operator knowing doesnt mean you should, the rules are there for everyones protection and I think the fact that when people do things they shouldnt it has caused problems speaks for itself in that respect. SteveWhat step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything.
Current thread:
- Re: Interconnects, (continued)
- Re: Interconnects Stephen Stuart (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Stephen Griffin (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects bmanning (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Mark Kent (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects bmanning (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects bmanning (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Stephen J. Wilcox (May 18)
- Re: Interconnects Marshall Eubanks (May 18)
- Re: Interconnects Stephen J. Wilcox (May 18)
- Re: Interconnects Ralph Doncaster (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Alex Rubenstein (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Paul Vixie (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects alex (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Paul Vixie (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Alex Rubenstein (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Paul Vixie (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Leo Bicknell (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Jeffrey Meltzer (May 17)