nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses
From: Alexander Koch <efraim () clues de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:07:28 +0100
Mike, All, I know the changes the LINX has implemented, and I am curious... and this might affect other folk as well. What is better - the LINX approach (blocking the port, trying again in x minutes when too many MACs were seen) or the Equinix approach (we hardcode your MAC per VLAN/ per port if untagged, all else we just drop)? Alexander
Current thread:
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses, (continued)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Randy Bush (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Randy Bush (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Steven Bakker (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Lincoln Dale (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses sthaug (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Niels Bakker (Nov 11)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Alexander Koch (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Mike Hughes (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Blaine Christian (Nov 10)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Arnold Nipper (Nov 09)
- Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses Steven Bakker (Nov 09)