nanog mailing list archives
Re: Unicast Flooding
From: Julio Arruda <jarruda-gter () jarruda com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:49:56 -0400
Steven King wrote:
Very true Eric. Microsoft even acknowledges the issue, and still has not fixed it. I have had a few customers use NLB and have this issue. Eric Gauthier wrote:Brian,The first is preventing it in the first place.As annoying as this might sound, this is one of thestandard operating modes for load balancing within a Microsoft server cluster (see NLB). We've tried to avoid it, but it seems to come up around once a year from someone on our campus...Eric :)
I understand is 'working as designed' ? Much like the Stonegate (?) Firewall redundancy trick ?It was a little worse when doing the multicast-l2 to a unicast-l3 address trick..
By the way, if you think this is funny in a campus ethernet backbone..Try it in an old ATM/LANE environment..I had customer that had the chance to try it, and wanted a root cause analysis. The BUS switch, was NOT happy in forwarding all the traffic going to the firewall cluster :-)...
Current thread:
- RE: Unicast Flooding, (continued)
- RE: Unicast Flooding Deepak Jain (Jun 17)
- RE: Unicast Flooding Holmes,David A (Jun 17)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Steven King (Jun 17)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Brian Shope (Jun 18)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Lee (Jun 18)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Steven King (Jun 18)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Jeff Kell (Jun 18)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Steven King (Jun 18)
- Re: Unicast Flooding Julio Arruda (Jun 18)