On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 03:10:21PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> I'm not attending*, but maybe others should discuss the IPv6 numbering
> plan? Specifically: should we be putting the ASN bytes at the end of the
> IPv6 address for multicast group reasons?
I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand the "problem".
(I'm not the one who originally suggested the layout, but did
initially redeploy the IPv6 addressing from the borrowed addressing.
First off, we are talking about a total of 26 IPv6 end-points.
Maybe if MICE grows a lot, we'll double that? Up to 52 end-points?
From what I've read on it, the purpose of the multicast group mainly
is to break up the ND announcements into separate smaller groups, since
ARP broadcasts on truely huge networks can get to be quite large and
problematic when you have 10,000 hosts responding. As far as I can tell,
the purpose of the multicast group grouping the lowest 24bits is not
to put each endpoint into its own multicast group, but only to break
it up into smaller and more manageable traffic bursts in order to
avoid the multi-megabit ARP storms that can happen on truely huge networks.
Either way, we are talking about a potential of 26 hosts reponding to
ND requests.
The only problem I see is that somebody following a CoPP guide that
put the ND policing limit at too low of a limit is saying that he is
getting more ND traffic than his CoPP guide suggests.
Am I totally confused about this?
--
Doug McIntyre <[log in to unmask]>
~.~ ipHouse ~.~
Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
