FTTH CPE landscape

Dan White dwhite at olp.net
Thu Aug 4 16:55:35 CDT 2011


On 04/08/11 14:32 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>>
>>>>> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
>>>>
>>>> Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
>>>> want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise.
>>>
>>> Why? As long as it can be a transparent router, why would it need to
>>> be a bridge?
>>
>> Ask a Verizon FiOS customer who wants to run IPv4 VPNs.
>>
>> He didn't say IPv6 only, right?
>>
>> I have a couple of customers who can't get bridge mode on residence FiOS
>> service, and therefore can't run their own routers to terminate IPsec.
>>
>If they could get routed static IPv4 rather than bridge, why wouldn't they
>be able to terminate IPSec VPNs? Note I did say TRANSPARENT router.
>That would mean no NAT and routed static IPv4.

For residential use, for users currently requesting one public address,
that's a waste of a /30 block (sans routing tricks requiring higher end
customer equipment). Multiply that by the number of residential customers
you have and that's bordering on mismanagement of your address space.

If you're dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted
ratio is much higher and less of a concern, but what's the point? Are you
trying to cut down on a large broadcast domain?

-- 
Dan White




More information about the NANOG mailing list