On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm
talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways
that residential
end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy
routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If
you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that
specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that
question.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home,
the ISP
needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the
home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is
statically
assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD.
What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where
would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office?
Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind?
Owen
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Owen,
The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand
the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or
any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise.
Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity
(silicon& software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider
in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing
CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems)
but they are still very nascent.
On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite
certain that it doesn't
cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have
much of a
cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for
ISPs that have lots of
residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48
will not make
for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible
additional costs of
the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
Owen
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in
the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base,
technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most
importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments
more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T
to say their entire DSL network is obsolete.
http://goo.gl/exwqu
On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable
technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously
doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than
attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't
really exist.
Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in
our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
Tim
On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing.
This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real
routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to
actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be
applicable to Joe 6-Mac.
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
