[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IXP
- Subject: IXP
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:48:28 +0000
- In-reply-to: <40948110-1240078448-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-766315601-@bxe1202.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> (Bill Woodcock's message of "Sat\, 18 Apr 2009 18\:12\:45 +0000")
- References: <[email protected].> <[email protected]> <40948110-1240078448-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-766315601-@bxe1202.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
"Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> writes:
> ... Nobody's arguing against VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs
> rendered shared subnets obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting
> that. Not saying that VLANs shouldn't be used.
i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
they'd do an IXP today if they had to start from scratch. i know that
for many here, starting from scratch isn't a reachable worldview, and so
i've tagged most of the defenses of shared subnets with that caveat. the
question i was answering was from someone starting from scratch, and when
starting an IXP from scratch, a shared subnet would be just crazy talk.
--
Paul Vixie
- Follow-Ups:
- IXP
- From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
- IXP
- From: arnold at nipper.de (Arnold Nipper)
- References:
- IXP
- From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
- IXP
- From: stuart at tech.org (Stephen Stuart)
- IXP
- From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)