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

["Alan Kavanagh" <alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com>]

Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing localised
in the aggregation network before the BNG. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Alastair Johnson
Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Mark Smith
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: 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