Re: Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6

[Bruce Pinsky <bep () whack org>]

On 9/14/2014 11:20 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland <sam () spacething org> wrote:
>
> > Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
> > can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
> > then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
> > Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could
> > then all be directly replied, eliminating broadcast gratuitous arps. If the
> > switches don't support the protocol they would default to flooding the
> > discovery requests.
> >
> > It seems to me that so many network are caused because of the inability to
> > change the host mechanisms.
> >
> > Sam
>
>
> It looks like in 2011 Cisco proposed a
> technology called "OTV" that would do
> just that, according to this page:
>  http://network-101.blogspot.com/2011/03/otv-vs-vpls.html
> Granted, it was aimed for wide-area
> networking, rather than control within
> a datacenter; but as everyone who has
> started doing BGP to their top of rack
> switches has learned, there's often good
> value in adopting techniques and protocols
> used in the wide area network within the
> datacenter as well.
>
> However, I haven't heard recent mention
> of it, so I'm guessing it failed to make a
> big enough splash to get any widespread
> adoption.

Also consider the emergence of eVPN and PBB-eVPN.

https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=5998&tclass=popup

-- 
=========
bep

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature