Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> writes: > Well, it's not my interest. I want tracability and security, and I can > only do that if my customers only communicate to each other via L3 via > my router. I never want customer to talk direct L2 to each other. > Q-in-q is expensive to terminate so I still want them to be in the > same vlan.
Even if you have equipment which can terminate q-in-q (or some other tunneling solution like EoMPLS is used), customers will likely require dual-stack for a while. If you want to give customers public IPv4 addresses and they each get their own broadcast domain, you will have to give them 4 public IPv4 addresses per 1 usable address. At this point in time such a deployment model is rather unattractive. Combining a shared-VLAN model for IPv4 with a separate-VLAN model for IPv6 for the same customers seems difficult to me. /Benny -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
