Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think you have reinvented what has been called multilink subnets. This
has been discussed at some length in the IPv6 working group and the
conclusion was to not go there in the general case. We did produce a
very simple version called "ND Proxy". See: http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-04.txt. This is
currently in RFC-Editor queue.
Interesting, but it's sufficiently different from what I envisioned I didn't
see a connection. It shows me the value of creating specific protocols to
cover a specific set of use cases, though, rather than one that tries to
cover them all.
Dave Thaler also wrote a draft on the general topic that was presented at
the internet area meeting in Dallas:
Issues With Protocols Proposing Multilink Subnets
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-
subnet-issues-00.txt
Very good reading; thanks for the pointer.
It seems the main issue is multicast propogation, which is one I'd come up
with but didn't see the full ramifications of. In fact, limiting
multicast/broadcast traffic is one of my main reasons for wanting multilink
subnets (the other being STP scaling problems). I'll have to think about
if/how the listed problems apply to what I had in mind; they might be
considered features in some environments, not bugs.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
