David, good point indeed.
perhaps it is time for the IETF to acknowledge the fact that these link types are common and to take a more architectural and wide approach to solving and adapting its protocols to this subnet model. I'm concerned that we are standardising point solutions without understanding the problem. and I disagree with the chairs consensus call. (not that I necessarily think there are alternatives, but I'd like to see a big warning banner somewhere, not just a "we need to fix a few nits before last calling it). cheers, Ole On Oct 28, 2010, at 23:58 , David Allan I wrote: > A quick comment on the soapbox statement... > > <soapbox statement>: I'm biased against this subnet model (N:1)... recreating > PPP functionality over Ethernet, trying to create user isolation on a shared > IPv6 link, which after all IPv6 protocols are not designed for. > > I appreciate the IETF has been kind of blind to this but this kind of > asymmetric Ethernet subnet is actually much more prevalent and been around > longer than you might think. In Metro Ethernet Forum terms it is known as an > E-TREE, support for which is being discussed by the IETF L2VPN WG. IEEE > 802.1ad(2005?) documents one possible means of implementing this in the form > of Asymmetric VID (which I think is also known as private VLAN) and this has > been carried forward into 802.1ah PBB/.1aq SPB. > > There is also physical media that behaves like this in the form of passive > optical networks, which are p2p to the root and broadcast to the leaves. GPON > and EPON becoming a very prevalent broadband deployment model.... > > BBF TR101(2006) is simply one instantiation of a useful construct that has > been around for years...and if anything will become much more common over > time... > > Cheers > Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
