[116837] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri Aug 21 11:51:30 2009
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:49:13 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <DB0E9FD7-54A3-4CCB-BA8E-BA0789B2F8A6@arbor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Roland Dobbins wrote:
> Chopping up the layer-2 broadcast domain for a given VLAN into smaller
> pieces via pVLANs can't hurt, either, as long as the hosts have no need
> to talk to one another - and it has other benefits, as well.
Or you hit the extreme DSL concentrator end where you crank out q-in-q
with roughly 1 vlan per customer (some equipment perhaps handling 1 to
many with other built in security features) and let the router proxyarp
between them.
Unnumbered vlans and RBE saved parts of my network from pending doom.
Even fixed issues with dslams that overran the arp caches causing
unicast broadcast storms, but the arp cache was irrelevant when it was 1
vlan per port.
I'm still waiting for other vendors to tell me how they can match that
particular Cisco functionality.
Jack
