RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-31 Thread Sean Donelan
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: Others commented on things I already had in mind only the username/password thing of PPPoE. We use the same username/pw on the modem as the customer users for their e-mail, so a password change necessitates a truck roll (I know, I know,

RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-31 Thread Frank Bulk - iName.com
assigned to the PPP device. Frank -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:s...@donelan.com] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:14 PM To: NANOG list Subject: RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: Others commented on things I already had in mind only

RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-30 Thread Frank Bulk - iName.com
10:03 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: I think the important thing is to have a separate L2 isolation per customer so you can more easily deploy IPv6 in the future. q-in-q or PPPoX will both solve this problem, but deploying multicast TV

RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-30 Thread Sean Donelan
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Vince Mammoliti wrote: This current draft DHCP Authentication http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-06.txt That's what makes protocol wars so much fun. With enough options, almost any protocol can do almost anything. As you know, I did my best to kill

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-29 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, JD wrote: I think the important thing is to have a separate L2 isolation per customer so you can more easily deploy IPv6 in the future. q-in-q or PPPoX will both solve this problem, but deploying multicast TV offering might be harder in this deployment model. There is

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-29 Thread Sean Donelan
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, David E. Smith wrote: With PPPoE, however, the end-user can't just plug in and go - they'll have to configure their PC, or a DSL modem, or something. That means a phone call to your tech support, most likely. In many cases, DHCP can lead to plug-and-play simplicity, which

RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-29 Thread Vince Mammoliti
29, 2009 5:07 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, David E. Smith wrote: With PPPoE, however, the end-user can't just plug in and go - they'll have to configure their PC, or a DSL modem, or something. That means a phone call to your tech support, most

RE: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-29 Thread Frank Bulk - iName.com
: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:21 PM To: NANOG list Subject: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL 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

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-29 Thread Ben Scott
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote: *dreams of a secure authenticate once world* It may be worth noting here that there are times were one wants barriers between automation to keep malfunction or malice from spreading too far without human involvement. Of

PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread 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

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread Jack Bates
JD wrote: 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.

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread Saxon Jones
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 jdupuy-l...@socket.net There is a debate among our engineering staff as to

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread David E. Smith
Opinions on this? I'd be interested in hearing the latest real world experience for both and the direction most folks are going in. I can't speak to which would be better on copper specifically, but in general I'd favor DHCP over PPPoE. Either way, most of the back-end stuff will be similar

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread Walter Keen
Most aDSL modems if set to PPPoE (I think Actiontec's come this way by default) will send the mac as the pppoe un/pw. David E. Smith wrote: Opinions on this? I'd be interested in hearing the latest real world experience for both and the direction most folks are going in. I can't speak

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread George Carey
We like PPPoE on the edge because we can use RADIUS to apply policy to the subscribers for bandwidth management, class-of-service, SNPs, etc. You probably have some of these features via your DSLAM, but we found it easier to do via RADIUS with a web based GUI for our provisioning folks. So

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread Mark Smith
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:33:58 -0700 Walter Keen walter.k...@rainierconnect.net wrote: Most aDSL modems if set to PPPoE (I think Actiontec's come this way by default) will send the mac as the pppoe un/pw. David E. Smith wrote: Opinions on this? I'd be interested in hearing the latest

Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL

2009-10-28 Thread Nathan Ward
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone. On 29/10/2009, at 11:33, Walter Keen walter.k...@rainierconnect.net wrote: Most aDSL modems if set to PPPoE (I think Actiontec's come this way by default) will send the mac as the pppoe un/pw. David E. Smith wrote: