Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6

Mon Sep 15 06:29:59 UTC 2014

On 9/14/2014 11:20 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland <sam at spacething.org> wrote:
> 
>> Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
>> can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
>> then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
>> Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could
>> then all be directly replied, eliminating broadcast gratuitous arps. If the
>> switches don't support the protocol they would default to flooding the
>> discovery requests.
>>
>> It seems to me that so many network are caused because of the inability to
>> change the host mechanisms.
>>
>> Sam
>>
> 
> 
> It looks like in 2011 Cisco proposed a
> technology called "OTV" that would do
> just that, according to this page:
>  http://network-101.blogspot.com/2011/03/otv-vs-vpls.html
> Granted, it was aimed for wide-area
> networking, rather than control within
> a datacenter; but as everyone who has
> started doing BGP to their top of rack
> switches has learned, there's often good
> value in adopting techniques and protocols
> used in the wide area network within the
> datacenter as well.
> 
> However, I haven't heard recent mention
> of it, so I'm guessing it failed to make a
> big enough splash to get any widespread
> adoption.
>

Also consider the emergence of eVPN and PBB-eVPN.

https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=5998&tclass=popup

-- 
=========
bep

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3750 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140914/0adceecb/attachment.bin>