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

Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments



Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET)
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote:

Normally the customers are separated from each other by split horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques.
Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed.


Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair
pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your
default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill
(count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're
probably unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e.
an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an
Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model).

Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may want all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. There may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception point is (BNG vs. DSLAM).

aj