[116860] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sat Aug 22 22:06:51 2009
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:06:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
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
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>> there are two things you care about: storm control and port security (mac
>> address counting).
>
> 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.
I understand why hosts need to send broadcasts. In a close/single
customer environment, broadcasts could be useful. I hope most
future protocol designers now think of using multicast or other
discovery mechanisms besides broadcast.
But in a service provider network (or any managed network), is there any
reason why a customer needs to hear other customer's broadcasts? In
practice, are there any useful broadcast messages in a multi-customer
environment that can't/shouldn't be proxied by the network operator or
handled other ways.
