SIP on FTTH systems

Anders Löwinger anders at
Sat Feb 8 02:41:55 UTC 2014

> 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.

So, as I wrote to Mikael, don't you need to use proxy-ARP or proxy-ND to get 
devices in same L2 domain to be able to communicate? They are on same subnet 
so they will ARP/ND for each other.

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

There is no rocket science here. Scripting in routers/switches seems to be 
more common, Cisco has TCL and some Nexus and Arista boxes do Python.

There is only some hooks into the control/forwarding plane needed to do 
advanced services in access. Forwarding plane is covered mostly by SDN so half 
the work is done.

In a 24/48 port access switch there are few clients, so scripting performance 
is not a problem.

> 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?

They working on all the MPLS stuff to be able to sell L2 and L3 VPN services.

> 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.

Agree, the above list is music in my ears :)


More information about the NANOG mailing list