nanog mailing list archives
Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:23:42 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, JD 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.
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).
I don't really like tunneling, so I'd advocate the q-in-q model with separate vlan per customer (or having the L3 routing very close to the customer so you don't need to do q-in-q but still can do separate vlan per customer).
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL, (continued)
- Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL David E. Smith (Oct 28)
- 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)