ISP customer assignments

Justin Shore justin at
Tue Oct 13 21:11:06 UTC 2009

Dan White wrote:
> Occam did it partially right. They're half-bridging only - not true layer 2
> to an aggregator (which is not necessary in their scenario). The problem
> with the access vendor doing half-bridging is that they have to be very
> layer-3 smart, and Occam was not quite there for IPv6 last time I worked
> with them (about 6 months ago).

When we did a RFP with them they didn't support v6 yet but they also 
wouldn't get in the way of passing v6 over them (minus the DHCP 
snooping/learning features of course).  That was 2 years ago.  I haven't 
looked at them since but they said that they'd work on it.

> I haven't really been happy with any DSL vendor's response to my questions
> about IPv6. We happened to choose Calix, which is not particularly IPv6
> friendly, but were successful in getting commitments from them to support
> IPv6 pass through.

None of the FTTH vendors we vetted supported v6 but at least a few said 
that they'd work on it.  Pannaway's response though was priceless.

> I have little doubt that Pannaway could implement IPv6, they just need to
> get enough demand from customers to make it worth their while.

Pannaway was bought a while back by Enablence.  Hopefully they will 
drive a bit more clue into the products.  Hopefully that SE isn't there 
anymore or if he is hopefully he's not driving product development.  His 
other 2 answers about QoS not being needed because our links were 
sustaining saturation (microbursts anyone?) and that we didn't need an 
IGP because our network wasn't big enough and that static routing would 
do (for just shy of 100 routing devices in 3 POPs) was the icing on the 
cake.  Unfortunately the decision was made to eat the cake anyway.


More information about the NANOG mailing list