So what were you doing than, RFC 1483? Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:16 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: 'William McCall'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management Way back when Verizon first started rolling out DSL, we at a small ISP looked to wholesale ports from them via a deal they were offering. The were simply delivering PVC's to us via ATM on a DS3. 1 for each customer. They were doing the rate limiting based on what we ordered. I was able to use a lucent DSL aggregator for the handoff to our network. PPPoE wasn't necessary. --Curtis Frank Bulk wrote: > I wasn't aware that LECs have the money to provide a DSLAM port per pair. =) > PPPoA/E wasn't invented to prevent DSL sharing (not possible), but was the > result of extending the dial-up approach of PPP with usernames and passwords > to provide end-users IP connectivity. As Arie mentions in his posting, the > separation of physical link termination and session termination, done in the > dial-up world at the time, lent to setting up DSL in the same manner. > > You don't have to read too many commentaries on IRB & RFC 1483 to recognize > that that approach is all that great, either. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: William McCall [mailto:william.mcc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:24 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management > > My understanding of the PPPoA/E deal is that SPs (originally) wanted to > prevent some yahoo with a DSL modem from just being able to hook in to > someone's existing DSL connection and using it, so they decided to > implemement PPPoA and require some sort of authentication to prevent this > scenario. > > <snip> > > >