 |
 |
I would say that so long as we are careful to avoid creating loops in the topology and take proper steps to insure that fault isolation can be accomplished in the event of a problem, this is a good thing. Owen On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Steve Howard wrote: > Hello, > > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection to MICE. > > If the consensus is to move forward, we could haul the MICE VLAN to that customer (and presumably to any other CNS member or customer who wants a direct MICE connection). This could result in the MICE VLAN appearing at various places throughout the region. > > I think that this could be a good thing for MICE, but if not managed correctly, it has the potential to be troublesome for problem isolation. MICE already has remote switches at 511. Other exchanges often have switches connected throughout their city. In this case, it is a little of both – except that the individual remote connections could be farther away in different directions. Does that matter? > > Whether we add remote connections or not, I'd like to see us come up with a plan for spanning tree. It probably would be best to make sure that our spanning tree root is one of the MICE 10Gig switches (probably the main one?). Or, alternatively, we could disable/filter spanning tree altogether and do MAC filtering for loop prevention. I think that spanning tree has its limitations, but it is much easier to maintain then MAC filtering. It looks like the current spanning tree root is 00:0c:db:fe:af:00 which looks like a Brocade device. Hmmm... We might want to change that... > > What does everybody think? Are there better ways to do this? > > Thanks, > Steve > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1