On Sat, 18 May 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST) "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2002 bmanning@karoshi.com 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.