[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More CPE

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:32:23 +1300
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2008-01-12 01:28, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:16:09 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
> > 
> > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> So a subscriber who gets stuck behind the bridge version but wants to run
> > 
> >> an IPv6 subnet will have to buy a separate router and get a prefix from
> > 
> >> somewhere? That's broken.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I don't see how this is broken.
> > 
> > When I bought my (IPv4-only) cable modem, I was given the choice between a
> > 
> > model with a single Ethernet port (that is the bridge version), and the
> > 
> > more expensive model with multiple ports (plus Wi-Fi, IIRC), which I assume
> > 
> > is actually a modem integrated with an IPv4 NAT-router.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To me, this is a feature (mind you I took the cheapest model!) not a bug.
> 
> My assumption is that this is exceptional, and the typical SOHO
> user wants to buy one box providing wireless and wired connectivity
> for multiple hosts. But the vendors know better than I do what
> they typically sell...
> 

All the DSL CPE my employer has sold over at least the last 3 years has
been router CPE. The options are either single ethernet/single USB or
embedded 4 port ethernet switch/single USB/wireless. They can be
configured to operate as a bridge, routed (with NAT) is the default.

Regards,
Mark.