[168942] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: SIP on FTTH systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Fri Feb 7 00:01:49 2014
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <201402061608.52822.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:00:13 -0600
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
And then you need MACFF to overcome the split-horizon to that customers =
in
the same subnet can talk to each other. =3D)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu]=20
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 8:09 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SIP on FTTH systems
On Thursday, February 06, 2014 03:51:51 PM Anders L=F6winger=20
wrote:
> This is a deep hole, and basically does not work with
> IPv6.
>=20
> You need a bunch of stuff, proxy ND, proxy DAD, DHCPv6
> inspection, RA guard and more. One VLAN per customer and
> a separate multicast is much simpler.
If you have a reasonably intelligent AN (like some of=20
today's Active-E devices), you can create so-called split=20
horizons on the same bridge domain (VLAN, really) where=20
customers will only communicate via the upstream BNG at=20
Layer 3.
At Layer 2, even though they are all sitting on the same=20
VLAN, there is no inter-communication between them.
I've also know Huawei OLT's support these split horizons=20
too.
> Or do something bold, run L3 at the edge :)
BNG's are too big to distributed that deeply, even in=20
distributed BNG designs. This would get costly.
Cheap switches that have decent IP/MPLS support are mostly=20
geared toward Metro-E deployments, i.e., business-grade=20
services. So they are quite poor with regard to susbcriber=20
management features and capabilities.
Mark.
