Re: IPv6 end user addressing
Owen, The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent. On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
Owen
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu
On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
Tim
On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing.
This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac.
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments. The fact that you are talking about an entirely different problem space than I am shows that it is you who does not understand either the problem I am describing or the solution space that is applicable. Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD. Owen On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Owen,
The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent.
On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
Owen
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu
On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
Tim
On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing.
This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac.
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that question.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD.
What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office? Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind?
Owen
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Owen,
The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon& software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent.
On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
Owen
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu
On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
Tim
On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. > > This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real > routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to > actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be > applicable to Joe 6-Mac. > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that question.
I think i did below. However, in my region of the world, most service providers don't provide the CPE and most customers are BYOB.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD.
What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office? Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind?
In the home and the consumer is responsible. The fact that you utterly want to avoid the concept of topology in the home shows me that you really aren't understanding where things already are in many homes and where they are going in the future. ISP->CPE Head End Router-><Multiple additional routers and other deivces some of which have additional routers and or topology behind them. Some definitions of the above pseudo-diagram already exist in many people's homes (and I am including Joe six-pack in this) today. Lots of users string wired and wireless routers together in multiple layers with and without NAT in various (and often creative albeit not necessarily constructive) ways within their homes. Today, all of that is hidden from you because their CPE head end router (the one that talks to your supplied bridge in most cases) NATs it all behind one address. In the future, it will be semi-visible in that you'll see the additional addresses, but, you still won't have to do anything about it because it's routed and all you have to do is deliver the /48 instead of delivering the /128 (equivalent of the /32 you deliver today). Owen
Owen
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Owen,
The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon& software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent.
On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough.
Owen
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu
On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
> Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF.
For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use.
Tim
> On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. >> >> This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real >> routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to >> actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be >> applicable to Joe 6-Mac. >> > -- > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 8/11/2011 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments. The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that question.
I think i did below. However, in my region of the world, most service providers don't provide the CPE and most customers are BYOB.
Are you not CONUS? I thought I specified North American market, if not that was my intent, and in NA the service providers do supply in excess of 95% of all CPE. (Keep in mind that the term CPE is actually a little dangerous since telcos use it one way and cable providers another, in this case I am referring to the access device that provides the PHY translation from the access network (DSL, DOCSIS, FTTx, wireless, etc) and that device, which can be a router or a bridge, is almost always provided by the service provider.) My entire question is really should that device be a router in the future in your opinion.
Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD. What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office? Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind?
In the home and the consumer is responsible. The fact that you utterly want to avoid the concept of topology in the home shows me that you really aren't understanding where things already are in many homes and where they are going in the future.
ISP->CPE Head End Router-><Multiple additional routers and other deivces some of which have additional routers and or topology behind them.
I'm not avoiding anything, the term CPE head end router is oxymoronic and AFAIK isn't an industry term at all. I simply want to understand where in the physical network this theoretical device lives and who owns it. If its a customer premise device then you shouldn't describe it as having anything to do with the head end, since that's the other side (often a long way away) of the connection.
Some definitions of the above pseudo-diagram already exist in many people's homes (and I am including Joe six-pack in this) today.
Lots of users string wired and wireless routers together in multiple layers with and without NAT in various (and often creative albeit not necessarily constructive) ways within their homes.
Today, all of that is hidden from you because their CPE head end router (the one that talks to your supplied bridge in most cases) NATs it all behind one address.
In the future, it will be semi-visible in that you'll see the additional addresses, but, you still won't have to do anything about it because it's routed and all you have to do is deliver the /48 instead of delivering the /128 (equivalent of the /32 you deliver today).
Well, that's not really true. Given the complexities of firewalls and allowed access the requirements for service providers to manage that for most home users is going to increase rather than stay the same or decrease. That's kind of the point of TR-069 and the related suite (TR-098 especially). -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
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
participants (3)
-
Mark Newton -
Owen DeLong -
Scott Helms