nanog mailing list archives
RE: Service Provider Exchange requirements
From: "rick" <rsmith () firstnet co uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:56:42 +0100
You mention John Meylor was going to write an Informational draft about using RGMP, as I understood I though RGMP was Cisco proprietary.... if so that could be limiting, but did John and his group write the Informational draft- if so where can I get a copy of it. Thanks Richard Smith Firstnet Leeds email: rsmith () firstnet co uk **************************************************************************** ****** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in the email and files transmitted with it are those of the individual, not the company. If you have received this email in error please notify rsmith () firstnet co uk ******************************************** ************************************** -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of hardie () equinix com Sent: 23 October 2000 18:52 To: John Fraizer Cc: hardie () equinix com; mduckett () bellsouth net; 'nanog () merit edu' Subject: Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements
If your switch is MCAST aware, you should be able to keep mcast traffic on ports tagged for it to begin with. If your switch isn't mcast aware. you need to find a new switch.
MCAST aware means different things in different environments. Ideal is a switch that knows which multicast groups a particular port has joins on, rather than simply whether or not it is getting multicast traffic. In an ethernet fabric used as an exchange point, you have inter-AS multicast traffic, so sniffing IGMP doesn't do any good. Sniffing PIM sparse mode for joins would work. In some environments, you might be able to use RGMP to tell the switch which groups have been joined on a particular port (John Meylor mentioned over beer at the Cogent social that his group might consider writing up RGMP as an informational draft, so that number of enviornments may go up).
As for jumbo frames, will someone remind me what the benefit of using a larger MTU on the edges than you have in the core is? Is the edge device going to aggregate 6 1500-byte packets into a single 9000-byte jumbo frame for me?n
If it is not clear, I am talking about using jumbo frames on ethernet VLAN used in an exchange point; this would provide a migration path for service providers who have jumbo frames to the edge, because they could trade them over the exchange point frabric. They could, of course, do the same thing over a private interconnection. regards, Ted Hardie
Current thread:
- Service Provider Exchange requirements Mike Duckett (Oct 22)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements bmanning (Oct 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Service Provider Exchange requirements Mike Duckett (Oct 22)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements John Fraizer (Oct 22)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements hardie (Oct 23)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements John Fraizer (Oct 23)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements hardie (Oct 23)
- RE: Service Provider Exchange requirements rick (Oct 24)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements Simon Leinen (Oct 26)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements Christian Kuhtz (Oct 24)
- Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements Christian Kuhtz (Oct 24)