FTTH CPE landscape

Fri Aug 5 17:16:47 UTC 2011

On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

> 
>> You say waste, I say perfectly valid use.
> 
> Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and no the reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly over a bridged interface).
>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>> Why is it less of a waste to allocate a /30 to a business using a single public
>> IP than it is to a residence? This makes no sense to me.
>> 
>> I simply prefer the additional troubleshooting and other capabilities given
>> to me in a routed environment in most cases.
> If you want that then you need to run a router not have a /30 routed over your WAN interface.  Its far better for your WAN interface to be part of a much larger subnet that we can in turn route a network to.

I was speaking from the service provider perspective. If I deploy CPE to a customer, I want it to be a router, not a bridge.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110805/a1b6e642/attachment.bin>