[118775] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saxon Jones)
Wed Oct 28 17:45:09 2009
In-Reply-To: <4AE8B5A4.4040404@socket.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:44:23 -0600
From: Saxon Jones <saxon.jones@gmail.com>
To: JD <jdupuy-list@socket.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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-list@socket.net>
> 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
>
>
