[168924] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SIP on FTTH systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Feb 6 14:50:23 2014
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: Anders =?iso-8859-1?q?L=F6winger?= <anders@abundo.se>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:49:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <52F3C94E.9010209@abundo.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart10793094.JGypiG0Vlj
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, February 06, 2014 07:41:34 PM Anders L=F6winger=20
wrote:
> Ok, then you have not understood the problem with IPv6 in
> shared VLANs. You need to allow some communication
> between the user ports on L2, to get the IPv6 control
> procotol to work. You do this on IPv4 today, with proxy
> arp etc. Its much more complex in IPv6.
No, it's not, and no, you don't.
Active-E and GPON AN's support split horizons where shared=20
VLAN's allow for simple service delivery to the CPE, but do=20
not permit inter-customer communications at Layer 2.
All communications happens upstream at the BNG, which works=20
for IPv4 and IPv6.
And no, Proxy ARP is recommended for my competitors. If=20
you're not my competitor, suggest you turn it off if you=20
want happiness.
> Many devices support what Cisco calls Private VLAN or
> MACFF as specificed in RFC4562. There are IPv4 only
> implementations today - but not all these protocols are
> standardized, and are not interoperable between vendors.
> I have still not heard of any vendor shipping the same
> functionality to share VLANs with IPv6, in a secure way.
And that is why for modern Active-E kit, I prefer to enable=20
split horizons using split horizon tech. against bridge=20
domains, rather than Private VLAN's. Private VLAN's have=20
lots of restrictions, and on AN's that support EVC (Cisco-
style), you can enable split horizons on bridge domains,=20
which works perfectly for Layer 2 and Layer 3 traffic.
> PacketFront has sold over 1 miljon ports, and the largest
> installation is
>=20
> >50000 ports, both in Sweden, Holland and Dubai. This
> >can easily scale to
>=20
> much bigger networks.
The system specs. are impressive - basically, a little BNG=20
in a switch, which I can't complain with.
I suppose if I'm a business that wants to consolidate BNG=20
and business services on a single platform, the existing=20
routers I pay big money for to enable those business servics=20
can double as BNG's. It's distributed, uniform and a single=20
place where I can offer multiple services to different types=20
of customers.
But, if I'm a business with a low start-up budget focused on=20
broadband services, or lots of cash with no plans to break=20
into the enterprise or service provider markets, the=20
PacketFront make sense. My only concern would be NG-MVPN=20
support - does the PacketFront have that?
> The biggest issue with selling L3 to the edge is not
> technical or economical, its religious - people are just
> so used to build their networks in a specific way and
> they don't want to change....
Well:
- I support DHCP instead of PPPoE for subscriber
management.
- I support decentralized rather than centralized
BNG's.
- I support Active-E rather than GPON.
These are all relatively less-than-popular scenarios based=20
on many of the deployments I've seen in previous years.
So while I agree that there is a healthy amount of religion=20
to these things, there is also room for change if the=20
reasons are compelling. But yes, it can come down to=20
personal taste by one person in the company.
Cheers,
Mark.
--nextPart10793094.JGypiG0Vlj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=G9+I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart10793094.JGypiG0Vlj--
