[143528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Aug 11 17:31:20 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E443B57.6080501@ispalliance.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:28:06 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. =
I'm talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide =
gateways that residential
end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The fact that you are talking about an entirely different problem space =
than I am shows that
it is you who does not understand either the problem I am describing or =
the solution space
that is applicable.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the =
home, the ISP
needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router =
in the
home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it =
is statically
assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD.
Owen
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't =
understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything =
to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the =
pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than =
bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers =
also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for =
residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some =
cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but =
they are still very nascent.
>=20
> On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm =
quite certain that it doesn't
>> cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses =
don't have much of a
>> cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large =
allocations for ISPs that have lots of
>> residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 =
and a /48 will not make
>> for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the =
possible additional costs of
>> the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not =
enough.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>=20
>>> Tim,
>>>=20
>>> Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around =
terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the =
complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical =
features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and =
(perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of =
the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than =
DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say =
their entire DSL network is obsolete.
>>> http://goo.gl/exwqu
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>> On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> Tim
>>>>=20
>>>>> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> Scott Helms
>>>>> Vice President of Technology
>>>>> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
>>>>> (678) 507-5000
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>> --=20
>>> Scott Helms
>>> Vice President of Technology
>>> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
>>> (678) 507-5000
>>> --------------------------------
>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>>> --------------------------------
>>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
