SIP on FTTH systems
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Feb 6 19:49:43 UTC 2014
On Thursday, February 06, 2014 07:41:34 PM Anders Löwinger
> 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
> 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
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....
- I support DHCP instead of PPPoE for subscriber
- I support decentralized rather than centralized
- 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the NANOG