Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: FTTH CPE landscape
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:16:47 -0700


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 dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted
ratio is much higher and less of a concern, but what's the point? Are you
trying to cut down on a large broadcast domain?

Why is it less of a waste to allocate a /30 to a business using a single public
IP than it is to a residence? This makes no sense to me.

I simply prefer the additional troubleshooting and other capabilities given
to me in a routed environment in most cases.
If you want that then you need to run a router not have a /30 routed over your WAN interface.  Its far better for 
your WAN interface to be part of a much larger subnet that we can in turn route a network to.

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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description:


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]