On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:33 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 30/01/2013 10:24, Karl Auer wrote:
Hm. If you have 100 VMs per host and 48 hosts on a switch, methinks you should probably invest in the finest switches money can buy, and they will have no problem tracking that state.
What make+model switches would these be, did you say?
Oooh, you've got me there :-) My point was just that the additional state did not, as described, seem to me like such a massive amount more than that presently required. I thus doubted that lack of state capacity in switches would be a real (as distinct from a possible, likely or supposed) problem. If there *are* actual problems, then obviously I stand corrected. I don't mind being corrected, but I would be sad to see this aspect of IPv6 go by the board. I suspect that even if it *is* an actual problem now, it will turn out to be a transient one - switches will get more capacity and will just deal with it. Even if low-end switches don't, I expect that high-end switches will. But if it turns out that even the high end of the market doesn't care about traffic reduction but does want cheaper switches, then I guess we'll see a lot of non-MLD-snooping switches. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://www.biplane.com.au/blog GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017