From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152F421F261 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 02:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from hms-beagle-2.lan ([134.2.89.70]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MOfQw-1YTfSD3D8A-0063kr; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:59:19 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:59:17 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de> <3F47B274-B0E4-44F2-A434-E3C9F7D5D041@ifi.uio.no> <87twyaffv3.fsf@toke.dk> <87pp8yfe0s.fsf@toke.dk> <54EEE0D2.1060606@orange.com> <87bnkhosyi.fsf@toke.dk> To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:H+uV/4hLfKT/y0xChrfZySg/KVv7gq9QzZALoPziaUuSlACUWbN 63thf7ieoW0efcPj0tS9YfA+pISJL1zEqT+d57uHnUV0nQFgL+sOGq1wjJLQUWc4aQ6K6uc yvMEm+9omPRjU+hw5s4Btu5ApUOwr90u7eksCgxLYajZlCHCt33eNxAwmUXGeiQHWFf/04O wmsjjxfedUKSDBvF2jOuQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:00:19 -0000 On Feb 26, 2015, at 11:44 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Toke H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen wrote: >=20 >> Erm, how does that work? What part of the functionality can = reasonably be moved to the data center? The configuration web interface? >=20 > Basically you extend the home L2 domain via some kind of tunnel or = vlan to a server, and run the CPE there. We would need a new extension for CPE, for sure, "customer = premise=94 will no longer describe it well. Also egress shaping will = need to stay at the customers end of the bottleneck link (or better all = uplinks increased to either 10, 100 or 1000 Mbps so that ethernet link = speeds can be used to avoid the link to become the bottleneck). Also the = typical switch and AP will be somewhat hard to virtualize=85 And then we = basically need the same hardware at the customer end as we have right = now, simply for the modem switch and AP parts... Best Regards >=20 > The only thing left in the home is basically L2 bridging between WAN, = LAN and Wifi and the possibiliy of configuring settings such as Wifi = SSID, crypto etc. >=20 > = http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/topics/concept/ccpe-overvi= ew.html =85 Deep Inspection/Monitoring (lovely, I am not sure whether = Juniper actually want to market to ISPs or the NSA here) >=20 > http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/home-gateway-cpe-virtualization =95 Security and firewall features =95 Parental control services:=20 I could be wrong, but I fail to see the business case for an ISP to = switch from traditional CPE to basically traditional CPE plus =93virtual = CPE=94 in the data center (to badly paraphrase J. Zawinski =93now you = have two problems"); >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: = swmike@swm.pp.se_______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat