On 8/26/11 14:08 , Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/26/2011 13:57, Adam Novak wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I have a related-but-different example of how end nodes being able to >>> know/discover direct paths to one another could be useful. Imagine a >>> busy server network with some web servers over here, some sql servers >>> over there, etc. All of these systems are on the same network, same >>> switch fabric, and have the same gateway address. In an ideal world I >>> would like them to be able to know that they can speak directly to one >>> another without having to go through the gateway (and without my having >>> to manually inject static routes on the hosts, which of course is both >>> painful and un-scale'y. >> >> Shouldn't that be covered by the subnet mask? > > Mostly, yes of course, but I'm dramatically simplifying my example for > dramatic effect. :) > >> As long as they know >> they're on the same subnet (and ARP broadcasts will reach everyone) >> they should just ARP for each other and not involve the router at all. >> >> If they are on different IP subnets, but the same Ethernet, > > Yes, this is more often the case that I'm dealing with. (Working on > fixing a problem I inherited for a new client, so per your comment below > "don't number that way" may be the right answer.) overlayed subnets are pretty straight-forward with ipv6 RA. > Doug > > >> then we >> can either come up with a new way to do routing, or tell people not to >> number things that way. Perhaps a subnet mask or CIDR prefix is not >> expressive enough? > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf