[31839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (hardie@equinix.com)
Mon Oct 23 08:56:08 2000
Message-Id: <200010231253.FAA28571@nemo.corp.equinix.com>
To: nanog@EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 05:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: mduckett@bellsouth.net, nanog@merit.edu ('nanog@merit.edu')
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010222045180.29074-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net> from "John Fraizer" at Oct 22, 2000 09:13:36 PM
From: hardie@equinix.com
Reply-To: hardie@equinix.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Why would one use a VLAN in a shared-media exchange? The only legit
> reason I can think of is to enforce the "next-hop-self" rule and prevent
> peer A from exposing direct peer B routes to peer C.
One reason we've looked at is the ability to seperate multicast
traffic from unicast traffic without having to have seperate physical
media. In general, it can be used whenever you want to keep some
traffic out of the way of other traffic. Another possible reason
along those lines for ethernet based exchanges would be allowing jumbo
frames on some VLAN seperate from the basic shared-media exchange.
regards,
Ted Hardie
