DHCPv6 PD chains vs bridging
charles at thewybles.com
Tue May 5 15:57:38 CDT 2009
David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
>> Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an
>> RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticated
>> users who want routed behavior override it manually.
> Customer premise gear has a 'front side' and a 'back side',
I presume by front you mean wan and back you mean lan?
and it is
> already well ingrained behaviour for 'back-to-back port chaining' to
> create a single large bridged network in the home.
Really? What CPE?
My topology at home is
motorolla dsl modem->cisco 1841->catalyst 2924->wireless router->clients
The connection between the modem and router is a routed connection. The
default configuration of the Linksys kit I have seen is routed. I had to
change it to operate as a bridge (a one click option in the gui), and
turn off the local DHCP server to make a flat wired/wireless network.
Otherwise it insists on being a router.
(It would appear that SBC recently changed their network to only allow
their CPE with it's very limited configuration options. It's routed.
Public IP on the WAN and a fixed private IP (192.168.1.254). It hands
out 1 private DHCP address (192.168.1.64)
What is the
> customer's anticipated result from front-to-back chaining?
I'm not sure how many people do this. Many people have one integrated
device hanging off their DSL modem. They then purchase wireless
extenders to increase the reach. This is what I overhear being recommend
by Frys and BestBuy sales folks, and it seems to work well.
I don't know how many will do it in the future. I imagine that vendors
will just make beefer wireless routers to handle increased load. They
already have different models and software feature sets for "high end
More information about the NANOG