|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:37:12 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net> In-Reply-To: <4D530C2F.5050003@ispalliance.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 2/9/2011 3:50 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > The smaller telcos are almost universally doing NAT as well providers > like Alltel, Centurytel, Frontier, Finepoint, as well as the smaller > ILEC's simply don't do bridging on their CPE gear since they seldom had > their DSLAMs set up to deal with Q-in-Q or isolation methods. That's > not to say I don't know some that are the exception since I do know of a > few telcos that run PPPoE clients on the client PC and a handful that > did get port isolation working but they are not the norm in the US. Yeah, but CPE NAT with uPNP and other protocols is a far cry from LSN. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that over 90% of my network is bridged (even have some cpe's bridging 802.11 in, which really through the vendors for a loop, but they did it). However, LSN doesn't have a lot of the capabilities that CPEs have for dealing with NAT breakage. Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |