[113700] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sat Apr 18 18:53:41 2009
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:53:04 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: "nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <14911.1240089144@nsa.vix.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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 complexity
1Q 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
