SIP on FTTH systems

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Feb 6 19:49:43 UTC 2014


On Thursday, February 06, 2014 07:41:34 PM Anders Löwinger 
wrote:

> Ok, then you have not understood the problem with IPv6 in
> shared VLANs. You need to allow some communication
> between the user ports on L2, to get the IPv6 control
> procotol to work. You do this on IPv4 today, with proxy
> arp etc. Its much more complex in IPv6.

No, it's not, and no, you don't.

Active-E and GPON AN's support split horizons where shared 
VLAN's allow for simple service delivery to the CPE, but do 
not permit inter-customer communications at Layer 2.

All communications happens upstream at the BNG, which works 
for IPv4 and IPv6.

And no, Proxy ARP is recommended for my competitors. If 
you're not my competitor, suggest you turn it off if you 
want happiness.

> Many devices support what Cisco calls Private VLAN or
> MACFF as specificed in RFC4562. There are IPv4 only
> implementations today - but not all these protocols are
> standardized, and are not interoperable between vendors.
> I have still not heard of any vendor shipping the same
> functionality to share VLANs with IPv6, in a secure way.

And that is why for modern Active-E kit, I prefer to enable 
split horizons using split horizon tech. against bridge 
domains, rather than Private VLAN's. Private VLAN's have 
lots of restrictions, and on AN's that support EVC (Cisco-
style), you can enable split horizons on bridge domains, 
which works perfectly for Layer 2 and Layer 3 traffic.

> PacketFront has sold over 1 miljon ports, and the largest
> installation is
> 
>  >50000 ports, both in Sweden, Holland and Dubai. This
>  >can easily scale to
> 
> much bigger networks.

The system specs. are impressive - basically, a little BNG 
in a switch, which I can't complain with.

I suppose if I'm a business that wants to consolidate BNG 
and business services on a single platform, the existing 
routers I pay big money for to enable those business servics 
can double as BNG's. It's distributed, uniform and a single 
place where I can offer multiple services to different types 
of customers.

But, if I'm a business with a low start-up budget focused on 
broadband services, or lots of cash with no plans to break 
into the enterprise or service provider markets, the 
PacketFront make sense. My only concern would be NG-MVPN 
support - does the PacketFront have that?

> The biggest issue with selling L3 to the edge is not
> technical or economical, its religious - people are just
> so used to build their networks in a specific way and
> they don't want to change....

Well:
	- I support DHCP instead of PPPoE for subscriber
	  management.

	- I support decentralized rather than centralized
	  BNG's.

	- I support Active-E rather than GPON.

These are all relatively less-than-popular scenarios based 
on many of the deployments I've seen in previous years.

So while I agree that there is a healthy amount of religion 
to these things, there is also room for change if the 
reasons are compelling. But yes, it can come down to 
personal taste by one person in the company.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140206/51be5c4c/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list