Or should the service provider implement port security and limit the number of MAC addresses on the access ports, forcing the customer to connect a router in both ends and segment their network?
That would make the service less attractive, and also more complex to set up and maintain. For point-to-point service, there is really no reason for the network to care about customers' MAC addresses, VLAN tags and such.
*If* the customer connects directly to a router which terminates EoMPLS, I agree. But router ports are usually expensive, which often means that the customer connects to a switch. And switches definitely care about MAC addresses.
Couldn't PBB or even Q-in-Q provide that isolation as well, at least for point-to-point services? I must say that I don't personally have much experience with those, because we tend to connect our customers to EoMPLS-capable routers directly.
QinQ does nothing to reduce the number of MAC addresses required. PBB can do this, but there is still not a lot of PBB equipment available.
Also, do you see a demand for multi-point layer 2 networks (requiring VPLS), or are point-to-point layer 2 circuits sufficient to meet market demand?
That's a big question for us right now... we're not sure yet. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this.
There is some demand there. Whether that makes it worth it implementing as a product is another question. Trouybleshooting multipoint is more difficult than troubleshooting point to point circuits. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no