Anyone know what the rational is around the "official policy around APE" of only having a single MAC address per port?
I would have thought that there was some technical merit in allowing at least 2 to cover rotuer replacement (without MAC address spoofing) and offer some peer router diversity options (e.g. either via separate peering sessions or VRRP implementation.) FFS, please don't do VRRP on an exchange. Just don't. If you want redundancy, do it properly and run two independent peers, on two independent exchange ports. VRRP is a nasty hack for having two (or more) routers facing gear that is only expecting to see one. It has absolutely no place in core or exchange routing where proper routing
On 03/10/12 16:09, Mark Frater wrote: protocols are in play. A single dynamic MAC address filter should reset on interface transition, so router replacement (which will drop the port) is covered unless you're doing something "clever" with an extra layer 2 devices between the APE port and your router. If you are, please remove it and plug your router directly into your APE port. If we all had a dollar for every outage caused by people trying to be clever on exchange nets, we'd have quite a lot of dollars. Just don't. -- don