[47917] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Interconnects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sat May 18 16:11:27 2002
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: bmanning@karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 16:10:55 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1359711@multicasttech.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205181108190.1671-100000@staff.opaltelecom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST)
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 17 May 2002 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> > > perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
> > > have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
> > > I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.
> >
> > Uhm, another dumb question.
> >
> > Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what
> > protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing
> > Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network
> > operators do....
>
> LINX for example permits very specifically IPv4 only, no multicast
> including routing protocols etc, no mac broadcasts ie spantree.
>
Doesn't the LINX have a separate LAN for a multicast exchange ? I know that
this was set up, but I don't know what it's current status is.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
> I think theres a danger on very large switching fabrics that if youre not
> specific things will happen that are detrimental to all members.. all
> major switching problems I know of at LINX were caused by members doing
> something not permitted by the rules...
>
> Just because you -could- do something without the operator knowing doesnt
> mean you should, the rules are there for everyones protection and I think
> the fact that when people do things they shouldnt it has caused problems
> speaks for itself in that respect.
>
> Steve
>
>
> >
> > What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do?
> > The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect
> > two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables
> > without the NAP operator doing anything.
> >
> >
> >
>
