|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:53:17AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > 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 And aside from the other thread that spun off from this about the technological pro's and con's around mcast, perhaps there's another line of thinking to consider... Having seperate VLANs or otherwise "planes" may help a great deal operationally, by being able to introduce a ucastv4, mcastv4, ucastv6, mcastv6, etc etc.. place. (as long as you can keep the overhead down of actually running the "planes" themselves). Has anyone gone thru the exercise of worrying about such a thing/beast? Cheers, Chris (and before anyone flames me for not saying it, imho, the point about jumbo frames is moot. no flame intended.) -- Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm Atlanta, GA "Speaking for myself only."
|