> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:47 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: FTTH CPE landscape
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong"
>
> > > It differs from a b
On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>>> It differs from a bridge in that *it requires a chunk of routable IP space
>>> to put behind it*, and a route to go there. For the specific situation
>>> I posited, a consumer connection
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> > It differs from a bridge in that *it requires a chunk of routable IP space
> > to put behind it*, and a route to go there. For the specific situation
> > I posited, a consumer connection, you can get a static IP, but you *will
> > not* get ro
I was speaking from the service provider perspective. If I deploy CPE to a
customer, I want it to be a router, not a bridge.
Owen
Why? What is/are the technical or marketing reason(s) that make you
want to deploy routers over bridges knowing that they are more
expensive? For what kinds
On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> You say waste, I say perfectly valid use.
>
> Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and no the
> reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly over a
> bridged interface).
>>
>>> If you're de
On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>
>> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is
>> a router
>> which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In other
>> words,
>> it forwards packet
There continue to be many legitimate reasons why a consumer might not want
NAT on their connection. I wouldn't' consider IPSEC the primary one, as
even having one side under NAT is generally not an issue in most cases if
it's the initiator (further skewing your netflow statistics to even less
than
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Helms"
> Again, you're not in any way shape or form representative. IPSEC IS
> less than 1% for residential Internet customers in the US and its not
> even 30% for business accounts. I have visibility into access networks
> around North America which gi
On 8/4/2011 8:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Among the people I know, on the order of 35%.
Not a majority, but, I would not call 1/3rd less than 1%.
Again, you're not in any way shape or form representative. IPSEC IS
less than 1% for residential Internet customers in the US and its not
even 30% f
You say waste, I say perfectly valid use.
Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and
no the reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly
over a bridged interface).
If you're dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted
rat
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is
> a router
> which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In other
> words,
> it forwards packets and it doesn't do any other arbitrary things to
> them at th
5:08 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: FTTH CPE landscape
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> >> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
> >
> > Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:59 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 01:23 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is
>> a router which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In
>>
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 01:23 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is
> a router which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In
> other words, it forwards packets and it doesn't do any other arbitrary
> things to them at the wh
On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:38 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
>>>
>>> Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
>>> want to put our own routers o
On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
>
> On 2011-08-04, at 6:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Dan White wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/11 14:32 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Mes
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
> >
> > Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
> > want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise.
> >
>
Among the people I know, on the order of 35%.
Not a majority, but, I would not call 1/3rd less than 1%.
Owen
On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
>
> On 2011-08-04, at 6:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Dan White wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/11 14:32 -070
IPSEC Not so common. At least it's easy enough for them to be the
initiator, in most cases, and IPSEC NAT-T works great.
Much more common application would include PC gamers, xbox live, remote
desktop, slingbox, windows home server, and torrents.
Granted, some of these support UPNP (if your rout
On 2011-08-04, at 6:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Dan White wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/11 14:32 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Aug 4, 2011,
On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Dan White wrote:
> On 04/08/11 14:32 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
>>>
On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Generic consume
1 9:58 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: FTTH CPE landscape
>
> This isn't necessarily operational content, so I apologize in advance for
> the noise and thus encourage off-list replies (and/or flames).
>
> I figure the NANOG demographic might be able to point me in the right
Are you looking for an xPON ONT?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jason Lixfeld [mailto:ja...@lixfeld.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:58 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FTTH CPE landscape
This isn't necessarily operational content, so I apologize in advance for
the noise and
For residential use, for users currently requesting one public address,
that's a waste of a /30 block (sans routing tricks requiring higher end
customer equipment). Multiply that by the number of residential customers
you have and that's bordering on mismanagement of your address space.
If you'
On 04/08/11 14:32 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Thos
On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
- Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
>>>
>>> Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
>>> want to pu
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> >> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
> >
> > Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
> > want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise.
>
> Why? As long as it can be a transparent router, why would it need to be
> a bridge?
Layer 2 CPE capability is a big deal, especially if you're doing unrouted
multicast (see many TV/VoD over ethernet platforms for details). But it's also
nice for handing the customer a layer-2 service port lik
On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
>
> Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
> want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise.
>
Why? As long as it can be a transparent router, why would it
> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall
Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who
want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer
This isn't necessarily operational content, so I apologize in advance for the
noise and thus encourage off-list replies (and/or flames).
I figure the NANOG demographic might be able to point me in the right direction
seeing as how far reaching into the industry the readership is.
I'm doing rese
31 matches
Mail list logo
