[119301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Malte von dem Hagen)
Thu Nov 12 17:26:48 2009
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:25:58 +0100
From: Malte von dem Hagen <mvh@hosteurope.de>
To: Jonathan Lassoff <jof@thejof.com>
In-Reply-To: <1258060985-sup-4132@sfo.thejof.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: mvh@hosteurope.de
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig901A2CE309394BABA855F4F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
Am 12.11.2009 22:29 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Lassoff:
> Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
> LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicas=
t
> IP?
yes. There are at least some implementations of iSCSI and the accompanyin=
g
management services (e.g., for redundancy) that do not work well via rout=
ed
connections. Generally, storage services may be difficult being routed.
Further, some aspects of VMware (clusters) including management "need" L2=
connectivity, for example when you want to dynamically shift VMs from one=
hardware node to another transparently and so on and so forth.
The same applies to several load balancing and/or redundancy/failover mec=
hanisms.
rgds,
=2Em
--------------enig901A2CE309394BABA855F4F4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkr8i3sACgkQLuLG3RMdjsLbcQCffyh5JujqeGhRADlaYqvxNmqW
+EYAn2+KkyvLLwGAivNbDQNdBt/fAJBJ
=MH9b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig901A2CE309394BABA855F4F4--
