[116838] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Fri Aug 21 11:57:49 2009
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:57:26 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <DB0E9FD7-54A3-4CCB-BA8E-BA0789B2F8A6@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 21/08/2009 16:39, 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.
Unless your broadcast storm happens on an untagged vlan. Or unless you're
running VTP and also have ipv6 hosts connected to the switch on .1q tagged
ports, and consequently have to disable VTP pruning in order to get said
ipv6 .1q hosts to be able to talk to each other, and then if you have a
broadcast storm on any vlan, it could hose your entire l2 network, because
you've disabled vtp pruning.
Anyway, the point is: storm control on customer facing equipment is a basic
requirement.
Nick
