nanog mailing list archives
Re: SIP on FTTH systems
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:11:38 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
If I am a commercial customer of an eyeball ISP like Road Runner: *I am entitled to expect that that ISP is technically capable of protecting me from possible attack traffic from that other customer*, who's outside my administrative span of control. If they can send me traffic directly across a local access subnet, that requires a much larger hammer than if such traffic must cross the edge concentrator first, the configuration I assert is a better choice. Does that help?
Violent agreement. Customers should not talk L2 directly to each other using local switching, but they should be able to send IP packets to each other.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems, (continued)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Anders Löwinger (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Anders Löwinger (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 07)
- RE: SIP on FTTH systems Frank Bulk (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Jay Ashworth (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Jay Ashworth (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 06)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Anders Löwinger (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 07)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Anders Löwinger (Feb 11)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 11)
- Re: SIP on FTTH systems Anders Löwinger (Feb 11)
- RE: SIP on FTTH systems Frank Bulk (Feb 11)