FTTH CPE landscape
owen at delong.com
Thu Aug 4 22:43:58 UTC 2011
On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Dan White wrote:
> 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.
You say waste, I say perfectly valid use.
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG