North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Interconnects
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST) > "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 May 2002 [email protected] 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. Yep, its a completely separate LAN operated by LINX.. theres a number of members using it. Actually, I'm not one of them.. I was thinking about this today and wondered if people think they are benefiting at all from using multicast exchange points or even just receiving multicast over say a tunnel. I know the benefits of the technology but in reality, today, is anyone using multicast as an ISP and getting something out of it over unicast? Steve > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|