nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Mark Newton <newton () internode com au>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:19:34 +0000
On 12/08/2011, at 7:23 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers.
As a service provider, you don't want to burn an expensive TCAM slot to make IPv6 ND work for every device a customer places on their LAN. As a service provider, it's better to burn one TCAM slot per customer for the prefix you route to them, and leave adjacency relationships within their home to them. Think of MAC address table size limits on switches. Similar problem. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton () internode com au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton () atdot dotat org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mark Newton (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Joel Jaeggli (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Scott Helms (Aug 10)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Tim Chown (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Scott Helms (Aug 10)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Scott Helms (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Scott Helms (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Scott Helms (Aug 12)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mark Newton (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Jeff Wheeler (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 09)