IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-elkins-v6ops-multicast-virtual-nodes

sthaug@nethelp.no Mon, 22 September 2014 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706A91A1BAA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yBJhkQf3YKYI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 90C501A1B46 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 70308 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2014 19:21:51 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 22 Sep 2014 19:21:51 -0000
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:21:51 +0200
Message-Id: <20140922.212151.41703956.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <1411408550.77000.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1411255504.4053.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409221003200.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1411408550.77000.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dY59kfdXYjnEHvzT6-VNNkgdQ3w
Cc: draft-elkins-v6ops-multicast-virtual-nodes@tools.ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-elkins-v6ops-multicast-virtual-nodes
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:22:02 -0000

> It is an interesting question of whether 284 is too many or not.  I
> think I prefer to start using a term "administrative domain" (or some such)
> where those are the nodes that are under a single control for business
> or security reasons.
> 
> So, "administrative domain" (AD) and "broadcast domain" (BD) should be the same.
> For example, if I have three virtual servers (or nodes), then that is my 
> administrative and broadcast domain.
> 
> If I have a 1,000 nodes under my control, then that is how many that
> should be in my AD and BD.   IPv6 allows for large subnets so why not?

If you are putting 1000 nodes in the same broadcast domain, you are
deliberately ignoring painful lessons which have been learned by many
network engineers.

> On Linux, I believe when you do a PING, it is continuous until intentionally stopped.  So, doing a Ping to FF02::1 from a
> Linux machine will create havoc without having ill intent.  That is, accidentally.

On all the Linux boxes I just tried this on, I get:

sthaug@server% ping6 ff02::1
connect: Invalid argument

Steinar Haug, AS 2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email