Suresh,
Sorry for the late feedback, but there are some issues that should
be discussed. Some of the following are my views of the document and
others are summarized based on feedback from others.
To be clear, the following comments are being made as an individual
participant.
1. The
Hi Ted:
The scaling benefit offered by the approach is that the set of subtending end
system MAC addresses is summarized as the MAC address of the ARP proxy which
overwrites the ES address in the frame. The result being that MAC tables in the
core tend to be smaller. The key thing is that
Given the flurry of mail, I went back and reviewed my notes on this
document.
I believe I understand the problem (reduce size of FDB), but am
skeptical that solving it via the approach in this document is
worthwhile.
1) As DaveA points out, FDB tables are large on chips these
days. However, at
David,
-Original Message-
What this means is any non-IP E2E protocol (CFM, QCN etc.) is broken
and how one would instrument and fault sectionalize this network is
unclear.
[Linda] The proposed proxy gateway only represents the IP applications' end
hosts address by the gateway
HI Linda:
You wrote:
[Linda] The proposed proxy gateway only represents the IP applications' end
hosts address by the gateway address (i.e. only proxy them when the hosts
issues ARP/ND).
For CFM, QCN and non-IP E2E, no proxy address is used.
Then I still need a complete MAC table for these
David,
The CFM, OAM are exchanged among switches. The number of switches are limited.
The proxy gateway is to enable edge nodes not to have individual addresses for
end hosts in remote domains. The edge nodes only need to have the remote
gateway addresses and remote switches' addresses.
Hi Linda:
This sounds like the location of a proxy could be arbitrary in an Ethernet
network, is this what you are suggesting?
Thanks
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 2:54 PM
To: David Allan I; Ted Lemon
Cc:
