Suresh,
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Because it is :-). As an example, if you take an fat tree architecture,
> the number of access switch ports on a subnet is not directly related
> to
> the number of ports on the L3 gateway that are on the same subnet.
>
For the following network, if one subnet (regardless IPv4 or IPv6) have hosts
in all server racks, the L2/L3 has to enable the subnet on links (or ports) to
all the access switches (ToRs).
Then the IPv6's ND for the subnet will be flooded to all links. It is the same
problem as IPv4 ARP. How IPv6 ND scale better than IPv4's ARP?
L2/L3 boundary
+-------+
+/------+ |
| L2/L3 | \
+---+---+/\ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|T11|... |T1x| |T21| ... |T2y| ToR switches
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | |
+-|-+ +-|-+ +-|-+ +-|-+
| |... | | | | ... | |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ Server racks
| |... | | | | ... | |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| |... | | | | ... | |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
p.s. I still don't see how it is related to implementation. May be you mean
network design?
Linda
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
