On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:

> > >> Serious disconnect between map and reality here, Mark.
> > >
> > > If you think that, then I don't think you've read my emails
> > > properly.
> > 
> > ... or there is a serious disconnect between your reality and my reality.
> > 
> > By saying that L2 devices doing L3 inspection is a layer violation and 
> > isn't acceptable, you've dismissed the way millions of people are 
> > connected to the internet as... er, I don't know. Not acceptable and 
> > wrong.
> 
> Maybe we're disagreeing on the meaning of the word "acceptable".
> 
> I think most of us can agree that L2 devices doing L3 inspection is a
> layer violation.
> 
> What a lot of us can *not* agree to is simply dismissing such a feature
> *just because it is a layer violation*.
> 
> IPv6 in general is purely an added cost for the providers so far - no
> fresh revenue expected in the near future. That means we cannot do large
> scale changes of our current architecture. As a consequenc of this, we
> need largely the same functionality available for IPv6 as we have for
> IPv4 - *even if that fucntionality happens to be a layer violation*.
> 
> We need IPv6 to be "business as usual" as much as possible. A feature
> like L2 devices doing L3 inspection is, as far as I can see, a mostly
> software thing: Hardware filter to intercept the traffic and route it
> to the CPU, probably hardware rate limiting, software doing the actual
> inspection. Thus is should be possible to a similar thing for IPv6.
> 

Unfortunately I know of an instance where the vendor of DSLAM equipment
is saying the hardware doesn't have the resources to do these layer 3
inspections for IPv6. So 10s of 1000s of DSLAMs would need to be
replaced. Unfortunately, this means the market is going to stay with
using PPPoE/PPP despite the overheads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to