Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2013-01-16 Thread Linda Dunbar
, 2012 12:41 PM To: Greg Daley; Suresh Krishnan Cc: julien.i...@gmail.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03 Greg, Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. As for Router sending MLD query to all-nodes multicast ff02::1

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-27 Thread Linda Dunbar
@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03 Suresh, solicited node multicast address is formed by taking the low-order 24 bits of target address (unicast or anycast) and appending those bits to the prefix FF02:0:0:0:0:1:FF00::/104 Routers don't know

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-21 Thread Linda Dunbar
Suresh, solicited node multicast address is formed by taking the low-order 24 bits of target address (unicast or anycast) and appending those bits to the prefix FF02:0:0:0:0:1:FF00::/104 Routers don't know ahead of time what hosts are present in their Layer 2 domain. In DC with virtual

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-21 Thread Julien Laganier
Linda, The router periodically sends out a general query to which nodes replies to with a report of their multicast listening state. Also, when a node interface is configured with an IPv6 address, the node spontaneously sends a report for the solicited-node multicast address corresponding to the

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-21 Thread Greg Daley
-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012 2:17 AM To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: julien.i...@gmail.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03 Suresh,   solicited node multicast

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-20 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Linda, On 11/19/2012 07:11 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: 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

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-20 Thread Linda Dunbar
Suresh, Are you saying that router has to send out MLD Query for all potential ND multicast addresses and keep up state for listeners for all those multicast addresses? There could be millions of Solicited-Node multicast addresses. That is a lot of processing on routers. Linda

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-20 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Linda, On 11/20/2012 01:05 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: Suresh, Are you saying that router has to send out MLD Query for all potential ND multicast addresses and keep up state for listeners for all those multicast addresses? Nope. Only for those solicited node multicast groups that have

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-19 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Linda, On 11/13/2012 08:43 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: 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

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-19 Thread Linda Dunbar
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

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 ND applicability in draft-nachum-sarp-03

2012-11-13 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Linda, On 11/12/2012 05:36 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: Suresh and Julien, When the “draft-nachum-sarp-02” was presented at InterArea WG in 84^th IETF, the feedback was that the draft needs to be updated to include the processing for IPv6. So we updated the draft to include the