nanog mailing list archives
Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:02:35 -0500
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I think the important thing is to have a separate L2 isolation per customer so you can more easily deploy IPv6 in the future. q-in-q or PPPoX will both solve this problem, but deploying multicast TV offering might be harder in this deployment model.
In general, it shouldn't be. Local multicast TV offerings should be transmitted out of band from the standard internet connection, either different vlan or outside of the PPPoE. The nature of it usually indicates a specialized CPE maintained by the provider to support the necessary QOS, and division of Internet and Video traffic.
For public multicast, splitting in the local pop just doesn't matter much.
There is really no devices out there to securely do IPv6 to the end user natively when you have a shared L2 domain (in v4 this implies the L2 device will do DHCP snooping and do filtering based on that).
Several vendors claim to have v6 support for this in the next year. Currently, many of them completely break v6 due to the v4 security.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL, (continued)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Walter Keen (Oct 28)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Mark Smith (Oct 28)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Nathan Ward (Oct 28)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Sean Donelan (Oct 29)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Vince Mammoliti (Oct 29)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Jack Bates (Oct 29)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Ben Scott (Oct 29)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Sean Donelan (Oct 30)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL George Carey (Oct 28)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 29)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Jack Bates (Oct 29)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Frank Bulk - iName.com (Oct 30)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Frank Bulk - iName.com (Oct 29)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Sean Donelan (Oct 31)
- RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Frank Bulk - iName.com (Oct 31)