[143443] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Wed Aug 10 12:58:11 2011
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4E429FA4.2070506@ispalliance.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:57:13 +0100
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
> Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have =
deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I =
very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier =
and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by =
agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist.
Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use =
it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in =
use.
Tim
> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from =
routing.
>>=20
>> This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible =
to do real
>> routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to
>> actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to =
be
>> applicable to Joe 6-Mac.
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
>=20
>=20
