nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:49:13 -0500
Roland Dobbins wrote:
Chopping up the layer-2 broadcast domain for a given VLAN into smaller pieces via pVLANs can't hurt, either, as long as the hosts have no need to talk to one another - and it has other benefits, as well.
Or you hit the extreme DSL concentrator end where you crank out q-in-q with roughly 1 vlan per customer (some equipment perhaps handling 1 to many with other built in security features) and let the router proxyarp between them.
Unnumbered vlans and RBE saved parts of my network from pending doom. Even fixed issues with dslams that overran the arp caches causing unicast broadcast storms, but the arp cache was irrelevant when it was 1 vlan per port.
I'm still waiting for other vendors to tell me how they can match that particular Cisco functionality.
Jack
Current thread:
- Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Peter George (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Jack Bates (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Sean Donelan (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 21)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 22)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Roland Dobbins (Aug 24)
- Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509. Nick Hilliard (Aug 24)