Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
On Cisco hardware PPPoE was cleaner if you have other ISPs' customers on your network and you want to put them in their own VRF's. I've been out of that world for a while now, so maybe it's changed. -saxon 2009/10/28 JD > There is a debate among our engineering staff as to the best means of > provisioning broadband service over copper facilities. Due to our history, > we have a mix out in the field. Some customers are on DSLAMS set up for > bridged connections with DHCP; isolated by a variety of means including > VLANS. Some customers are on PPPoE over ATM. Some customers are on PPPoE > over ethernet (PPPoEoE ?? :) ). > > There seem to be pros and cons to both directions. Certainly true bridging > has less overhead. But modern CPEs can minimize the impact of PPPoE. PPPoE > allows for more flexible provisioning; including via RADIUS. Useful for the > call center turning customers on/off without NOC help. But VLAN tricks can > sometimes do many of the same things. > > Opinions on this? I'd be interested in hearing the latest real world > experience for both and the direction most folks are going in. > > BTW, I doubt it is relevant to the discussion, but most of our DSLAMS are > Adtran TA5000s (or are being migrated to that platform.) We are mostly a > cisco shop for the upstream routers. > > Thanks, > > John > >
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
In my experience it all comes down to Cisco-certified people being easy to find, and managers not wanting to spend all their time in the hiring process. So yes, I've generally seen Cisco as the de-facto choice, but it's rarely been a technical argument that swings the balance. I'm generally playing in the Enterprise space now, though. -saxon On 10 January 2011 08:31, Brandon Kim wrote: > > Hello gents: > > I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a > mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment. > > Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about > being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based? > > Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the "de facto" vendor of > choice? I'm not looking for so much "fanboy" responses, but more of a real > world > experience of what you guys use that actually work and does the job. > > No technical questions here, just general feedback. I try to follow the Tolly > Group who compares products, and they continually show that Cisco equipment > is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find that > so hard to believe. > > Thanks! > > Brandon > >
Re: Provider standard ARP Timeout?
I regularly used to lower the ARP timeout to 5 minutes (to match the mac-address-table aging limit) on devices running on ATM LAN-E segments and saw no ill effects. -saxon On 10 August 2012 08:23, Jay Nakamura wrote: > Cisco default ARP timeout is 4 hours. Do anyone change that to > something shorter in a provider environment for customer with Ethernet > connectivity? What is a good value to set it to? > > Are there any impacts for lowering the timeout? Other than higher CPU > util for doing ARP a lot more on the router? > >
