|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:33:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <op.uwrhiccmtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ricky Beam wrote: > Ethernet is not a point-to-point technology. It is a multi-point > (broadcast, bus, etc.) technology with DECADES of optimization and > adoption. No one has gotten IEEE to adopt a larger frame size, and you > want to drop *fundamental* elements of ethernet?!? I think the latest suggestion was to do away with the mechanisms, not change the frame format. It's like when you take a /30, run isis/ospf over it and tell the routing protocol it's a point to point link so it doesn't have to create a node for the "multi access network" that really isn't there. Same way here, putting the ethernet link in "p2p" mode would mean it wouldnt do arp anymore, didn't care about source or destination MACs, it just installed static ARP entry for other end and sent out packets, other end would be in promisc mode and accept anything. I don't see much gain from this though, and it's another way things can be configured wrong and cause havoc if you connect this interface to a LAN. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |