[113946] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Broadband Subscriber Management
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Maurand)
Fri Apr 24 08:15:13 2009
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:15:36 -0400
From: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com>
To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACGzM93gBrXR75YMKResLlwAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.mccall@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>
>
>
>
