Re: Interconnects

["Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>]

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.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


> I 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.
>
> Steve
>
>
> > What 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.