|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:23:42 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <4AE8B5A4.4040404@socket.net> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, JD wrote: I think the important thing is to have a separate L2 isolation per customer so you can more easily deploy IPv6 in the future. q-in-q or PPPoX will both solve this problem, but deploying multicast TV offering might be harder in this deployment model. There is really no devices out there to securely do IPv6 to the end user natively when you have a shared L2 domain (in v4 this implies the L2 device will do DHCP snooping and do filtering based on that). I don't really like tunneling, so I'd advocate the q-in-q model with separate vlan per customer (or having the L3 routing very close to the customer so you don't need to do q-in-q but still can do separate vlan per customer). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |