Stephen,
On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.
Do a search and read the earlier versions of the draft (w.g. and
individual). The original intent was broader :-)
Bob
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
