Am 14.07.2018 um 14:13 schrieb Baldur Norddahl :
>
> I am considering writing a small program or kernel module. This would create
> two TAP devices (tap0 and tap1). Traffic received on tap0 with VLAN tagging,
> will be stripped of VLAN tagging and delivered on tap1. Traffic received on
> tap1 w
On 14/Jul/18 20:29, t...@wicks.co.nz wrote:
> My biggest issue with the vendor offerings is that they are not making their
> virtual offerings (VMX, VSR) attractive enough pricing wise at the small
> scale, we have successful virtual Juniper and Nokia BNG's in production but
> pricing wise i
On 07/15/2018 10:56 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
On 2018-07-15 19:00, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
On 07/15/2018 09:03 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
On 2018-07-14 22:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
About OVS, i didnt looked much at it, as i thought it is not suitable
for BNG purposes,
like for te
søn. 15. jul. 2018 18.57 skrev Denys Fedoryshchenko :
>
> Openflow IMO by nature is built to do complex matching, and for example
> for
> typical 12-tuple it is 750-4000 entries max in switches, but you go to
> l2 only matching
> which was possible at moment i tested, on my experience, only on PF5
On 2018-07-15 19:00, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
On 07/15/2018 09:03 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
On 2018-07-14 22:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I have considered OpenFlow and might do that. We have OpenFlow
capable
switches and I may be able to offload the work to the switch
hardware.
But I als
Den 15/07/2018 kl. 18.00 skrev Raymond Burkholder:
But I think a clarification on Baldur's speed requirements is needed.
He indicates that there are a bunch of locations: do each of the
locations require 10G throughput, or was the throughput defined for
all sites in aggregate? If the sites
On 07/15/2018 09:03 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
On 2018-07-14 22:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I have considered OpenFlow and might do that. We have OpenFlow capable
switches and I may be able to offload the work to the switch hardware.
But I also consider this solution harder to get right than
Hi Baldur,
Based on the information you provided, CPE connects to the POI via
different service provider (access network provider / middle man) before it
reaches your network/POP.
With this construct, you are typically responsible for IP allocation and
session authentication via DHCP (option
On 2018-07-14 22:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I have considered OpenFlow and might do that. We have OpenFlow capable
switches and I may be able to offload the work to the switch hardware.
But I also consider this solution harder to get right than the idea of
using Linux with tap devices. Also it ap
o
like Nokia's and Cisco's for some features).
I am consulting operators from few hundreds to hundreds of thousands.
It is very rare, when Linux bng doesn't suit them.
But let's say we would want to go forward and ditch legacy /
proprietary
code to surf on the NFV bullshit-wave. W
Hi Baldur,
These guys made a PPPoE client for VPP - you could probably extend
that into a PPP server:
https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/9181
https://github.com/raydonetworks/vpp-pppoeclient
Although, I would agree that deploying PPP now is a bit of a step
backwards and IPoE is the way to be
Hi Baldur,
Le 14/07/2018 à 14:13, Baldur Norddahl a écrit :
> I am investigating Linux as a BNG
As we say in France, it's like your trying to buttfuck flies (a local
saying standing for "reinventing the wheel for no practical reason").
Linux' kernel networking stack is not made for this kind of
On 2018-07-14 15:13, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Hello
I am investigating Linux as a BNG. The BNG (Broadband Network Gateway)
being the thing that acts as default gateway for our customers.
The setup is one VLAN per customer. Because 4095 VLANs is not enough,
we have QinQ with double VLAN tagging on
Den 14/07/2018 kl. 19.09 skrev Raymond Burkholder:
Where do you have this happening? Do you have aggregation switches
doing this? Are those already in place, or being planned? Because I
would make a suggestion for how to do the aggregation.
The POI (Point of Interconnect) with the incu
>The setup is one VLAN per customer. Because 4095 VLANs is not enough, we have
>QinQ with double VLAN tagging on the customers. The customers can use DHCP or
>static configuration. DHCP packets need to be option82 tagged and forwarded to
>a DHCP server. Every >customer has one or more static I
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 tha
interspersed comments
On 07/14/2018 06:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I am investigating Linux as a BNG. The BNG (Broadband Network Gateway)
being the thing that acts as default gateway for our customers.
The setup is one VLAN per customer. Because 4095 VLANs is not enough, we
have QinQ w
Hello
I am investigating Linux as a BNG. The BNG (Broadband Network Gateway)
being the thing that acts as default gateway for our customers.
The setup is one VLAN per customer. Because 4095 VLANs is not enough, we
have QinQ with double VLAN tagging on the customers. The customers can
use DHC
18 matches
Mail list logo
