nanog mailing list archives
Re: Linux BNG
From: Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 11:26:27 -0600
I agree with all aspects. On 07/14/2018 11:09 AM, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
As mentioned earlier, why make the core boxes do all of the work? Why not distribute the functionality out to the edge? Rather than using traditional switch gear at the edge, use smaller Linux boxes to handle all that complicated edge manipulation, and then keep your high bandwidth core boxes pushing packets only
But I do ask:Do you (the ISP) control the CPE (modem / ONT)? Could you push the VxLAN (or maybe MPLS) functionality all the way into it?
This would have the added advantage of a (presumably) trusted device providing the identification back to your core equipment.
Perhaps even minimal L3 routing w/ DHCP helper such that the customer saw the CPE as the default gateway. (Though this might burn a lot more IPs. This might not be an issue if you're using CGNAT.)
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Current thread:
- Linux BNG Baldur Norddahl (Jul 14)
- Re: Linux BNG Raymond Burkholder (Jul 14)
- Re: Linux BNG Grant Taylor via NANOG (Jul 14)
- Re: Linux BNG Baldur Norddahl (Jul 14)
- Re: Linux BNG Denys Fedoryshchenko (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Raymond Burkholder (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Baldur Norddahl (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Denys Fedoryshchenko (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Baldur Norddahl (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Raymond Burkholder (Jul 15)
- Re: Linux BNG Raymond Burkholder (Jul 14)
- Re: Linux BNG Mark Tinka (Jul 16)