[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:30:46PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > The above shows that a /64 is problematic.  :-)
> 
> Only if you assume numbered PPP links.  Which is no way mandatory 
> (nor useful towards single-LAN customers).

Actually, it is very useful as you can monitor IP reachability of the
CPE (WAN line) without having to care wether the LAN port is up&running
(customer responsibility). I've seen both setups side-by side in 24/7
NOC operation and I can assure you that unnumbered LAN links suck hard
if you have customers who switch off their office switch/hub every
night. You never know wether there is an actual outage or just customer
playing with his LAN. And you cannot even log into the CPE as the only
IP address the CPE has is the LAN interface... which might be down and
thus unreachable (at least in the Cisco CPE case).

So overall: bad idea to run customer links unnumbered. IMHO. YMMV.

> (This is conceptually not overly different from the way IPv4 DHCP
> works on DSL lines in some bridged-mode deployments today - all DSL
> lines share a "virtual" bridged /24 or similar, so you don't need
> a /30 per DSL customer)

Yes, and that sucks from security point of view.

Technology has advanced. Why repeat the same mistakes the cable folks
did?


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0