man, 15 11 2010 kl. 10:29 +0000, skrev Tomas Daniska: > it's not only ARP reply that takes into account when talking > operability of such solutions.
> At one particular case, we had been hit hard with this clustering > method. Over the time, everything worked as the old switches were > slightly lax on RFP compliance. After upgrading to a 3C[XL] system, we > have experienced the packet with multicast source MAC were getting > dropped under some circumstances in hardware. > Clearly a Microsoft way of doing things - let's bend the standard, let > it spread, and then let the end users beat those who do comply. Microsoft were by far not the first to do this, and I still believe that it is a brilliant solution to a difficult problem, even though we do not use it. It is highly worrying if the 6500/7600 breaks this for layer 2 traffic. If we provide an EoMPLS link to a customer, it better be transparent. Support for this will definitely go into our next requirements document. /Benny _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
