Suresh, Comments are inserted below:
> -----Original Message----- > > > > Even though that IPv6 ND uses multicast instead broadcast, IPv6 ND > does > > have scalability issues in Data Center when hosts within same subnet > are > > spread across different access switches, and when there are lot of > those > > subnets. In particular: > > > > * when hosts within the same subnet are spread across multiple > > switches (or GWs in the draft), the ND solicitation still go to all > > switches which might have the same subnet hosts attached. The traffic > > across GWs are same as IPv4's ARP. The only difference is that hosts > > impact is reduced. > > This is not true. If the switches are MLD snooping then the packets > will > not be sent to irrelevant GWs/switches. > [Linda] For those GWs which has Hosts belonging to a particular subnet, the multicast for the subnet will reach all those GWs. > > > > > > > > * When host "a" needs to communicate with host "b" in > different > > subnet, "a" needs to send "Neighbor Solicitation" to L2/L3 boundary > > router, (just the same way as IPv4 ARP). > > Correct. But only the router gets it. Not all the other hosts in the > subnet (which is the case for ARP). > > > > > When there are many subnets spreading across many access switches, > the > > L2/L3 boundary router has to enable all those subnets on many of its > > ports/links. > > This is purely an implementation issue. I know of several router > implementations where this is not the case. > [Linda] This is the standard setting. When you have one subnet spanning over 20 server racks, with each rack reaching the L2/L3 boundary router via different links, the subnet has to be enabled on all those 20 ports. Why do you say it is implementation issue? Linda _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
