North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Interconnects

  • From: Stephen J. Wilcox
  • Date: Sat May 18 19:52:51 2002

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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>