IPv6 end user addressing
owen at delong.com
Thu Aug 11 21:28:06 UTC 2011
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential
end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The fact that you are talking about an entirely different problem space than I am shows that
it is you who does not understand either the problem I am describing or the solution space
that is applicable.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP
needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the
home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically
assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD.
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent.
> On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't
>> cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a
>> cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of
>> residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make
>> for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of
>> the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>> Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete.
>>> On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>> On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
>>>>> Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist.
>>>> Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
>>>> For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
>>>>> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>> Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing.
>>>>>> This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real
>>>>>> routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to
>>>>>> actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be
>>>>>> applicable to Joe 6-Mac.
>>>>> Scott Helms
>>>>> Vice President of Technology
>>>>> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
>>>>> (678) 507-5000
>>> Scott Helms
>>> Vice President of Technology
>>> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
>>> (678) 507-5000
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
More information about the NANOG