FTTH CPE landscape

Fri Aug 5 08:23:55 UTC 2011

On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:38 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> 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?
> 
> I must be having a senior moment, but what in the world is a "transparent
> router" and how is it different from running in bridged mode?  (Note that if if
> it's transmogrifying the packets in some way, it's not really transparent, and
> if it's not, it's basically bridging...)
> 

A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is a router
which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In other words,
it forwards packets and it doesn't do any other arbitrary things to them at the
whim of the ISP, but, rather passes along what the customer gives it to the
ISP and vice versa without interference.

It differs from a bridge in that it terminates the collision and broadcast domains
on either side of it.

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/d8dfcfd8/attachment.bin>