[111606] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 delivery model to end customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Mon Feb 9 03:06:01 2009
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:05:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902071854000.16135@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: John Lee <john@internetassociatesllc.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> But I wasn't talking (A)DSL. DSL is last century. I am talking VDSL2/ETTH.
> Security model there is to only have ethernet and IP, no PPP/ATM, no L2TPv3
> or PPPoE. Let's skip the terms BRAS/LNS etc. Anything that terminates tunnels
> is expensive (apart from GRE/IPV6IP which the 7600 seems to do very well, but
> I don't like tunnels. I like native). Most of the ETTH ports are 10/10,
> 100/10 or 100/100 (or even higher speeds) and 100/10 costs ~30 USD a month.
> L2TPv3/PPPoE is not an option.
I may be missing something. "only have ethernet and IP". Why is
plain-ethernet with each subscriber provisioned in a separate router's
vlan subinterface insufficient? There is no security issue because
each subscriber only sees its own traffic.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
