Mikael, > The reason why I get so frustrated is that here I'm sitting with a deployment > model with millions of customers, in a country that is at the top of the > broadband penetration and bw list, and the feeling I'm getting from people > here is not even an acceptance that this is a valid deployment model.
Is there a writeup of the model as a whole? If not, it would be immensely useful (and maybe this discussion belongs on v6ops or opsawg). Regards Brian Carpenter On 2010-09-11 18:23, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Fred Baker wrote: > >> If I may make a humble request - could we get back to work, please? > > Good post. > > I guess I've been part of the bashing. It's a fine line between saying > that things haven't been done to solve current problems and there is a > lot of improvement to do, and going to far and it turns into bashing. > Sorry. > > The reason why I get so frustrated is that here I'm sitting with a > deployment model with millions of customers, in a country that is at the > top of the broadband penetration and bw list, and the feeling I'm > getting from people here is not even an acceptance that this is a valid > deployment model. This deployment model is 10 years old, I did my first > such installation in 1999. A lot of development went into this in > 2000-2002 to make it secure with DHCP inspection, STP source guard, the > whole IPv4/ethernet suite. It's been very successful in these markets > with the highest per-customer speeds of any deployment model I'm aware > of and at a end user price of 10/10 ETTH as low as USD10 per month in > large deployments. > > "You're doing it wrong, go away". > > Doing PPPoE to customers with 100/100 megabit/s ETTH accesses is just > not economically feasable. First of all there aren't CPEs that are fast > enough and the tunnel termination router gets really expensive because > instead of a fairly cheap L3 switch and "always on" (DHCP only), you > have to complicate things a lot more for both customers and yourself. > > So here we are, 10 years after this was done for IPv4 and it hasn't been > done for IPv6, and that's why IPv6 is undeployable in these networks, > and it seems quite a lot of people don't even think this is a problem. > > Sorry for being frustrated and saying things I perhaps shouldn't, but I > hope the above might explain a few things. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
