[90811] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Interesting new spam technique - getting a lot more popular.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Jun 15 09:16:42 2006
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:15:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Kristal, Jeremiah" <jeremiah.kristal@above.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CF54E18546F40342B86C2531C80DA8076AF200@lgaxmb00.na.above.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Kristal, Jeremiah wrote:
> advice when they first started to attempt to migrate), or supporting
> super/sub-VLANs in an operational environment. Customers hated both,
> but at least they saw better performance once the hosting network was
> broken up per-customer VLANs.
Why would customers hate it? We have deployed super/subvlan for
residential DSL (1 static IP address per residential user) and we have no
complaints afaik.
Yes, if you want more flexiblity to put any IP in any vlan in any or
alike, the implementation is lacking.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
