Point to Point Ethernet

Tomas L. Byrnes tomb at byrneit.net
Wed Jul 8 19:52:35 CDT 2009


The fundamental disconnect here is that a bunch of Layer 3 guys are
trying to define Layer 2.

History shows us that Layer 2 winds up being IEEE, and Layer 3 IETF.

ITU-T and others write long "standards" that wind up not being so, due
to too many "options", while spending lots of money and keeping the
airlines, rental car companies, and meeting space vendors in business.

If you want "Real Ethernet" (IE multiple access, not point to point) in
a metro framework, then why increase the likelihood of collisions by
using jumbo frames?

If you want to use Ethernet in point to point, then do it, just make
sure your optics are up to the task, and the endpoints are configured
properly.

If what you're looking for is carrier Ethernet with the sort of "craft"
interfaces and features you're used to from the telco world, then you
may want to talk to Ipitek. (I've done some consulting for them, but am
in no way affiliated or compensated for sales.)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike at swm.pp.se]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:33 AM
>To: Ricky Beam
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet
>
>On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> Ethernet is not a point-to-point technology.  It is a multi-point
>> (broadcast, bus, etc.) technology with DECADES of optimization and
>> adoption.  No one has gotten IEEE to adopt a larger frame size, and
>you
>> want to drop *fundamental* elements of ethernet?!?
>
>I think the latest suggestion was to do away with the mechanisms, not
>change the frame format. It's like when you take a /30, run isis/ospf
>over
>it and tell the routing protocol it's a point to point link so it
>doesn't
>have to create a node for the "multi access network" that really isn't
>there.
>
>Same way here, putting the ethernet link in "p2p" mode would mean it
>wouldnt do arp anymore, didn't care about source or destination MACs,
it
>just installed static ARP entry for other end and sent out packets,
>other
>end would be in promisc mode and accept anything.
>
>I don't see much gain from this though, and it's another way things can
>be
>configured wrong and cause havoc if you connect this interface to a
LAN.
>
>--
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se





More information about the NANOG mailing list