nanog mailing list archives
Re: IXP
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:53:04 -0500
Paul Vixie wrote:
if we maximize for simplicity we get a DELNI. oops that's not fast enough we need a switch not a hub and it has to go 10Gbit/sec/port. looks like we traded away some simplicity in order to reach our goals.
Agreed. Security + Efficiency = base complexity1Q has great benefits in security while maintaining a reasonable base complexity compared to "1 mac per port/MAC acl + broadcast storm control + <insert common L2/3 security/performance tweaks commonly used in a flat multi-point topology>". Things grow more complex as you reach up into MPLS.
I'll show my ignorance and ask if it's possible to handle multicast on a separate shared tag and maintain security and simplicity while handling unicast on p2p tags?
Standard methods of multicast on the Internet are foreign to me, and tend to act differently than multicast feeds standardly used for video over IP in local segments (from what little I have read). Primarily, I believe there was a reliance of unicast routing by multicast, which separate L2 paths might break.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: IXP, (continued)
- Re: IXP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Apr 17)
- RE: IXP Deepak Jain (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Dale Carstensen (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Ferguson (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Roland Dobbins (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)