nanog mailing list archives
RE: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior]
From: "Timothy R. McKee" <trm3 () nuvox net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:55:34 -0400
We worked with PPPoE for a while. None of the Windows implementations work well. They are terrible. We ended up requiring all customers to buy a dual Ethernet router that supported it. That works a little better. Tim McKee -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Fletcher E Kittredge Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 17:22 To: Pim van Riezen Cc: North America Network Operators Group Mailing List; Ted Lemon Subject: Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:00:02 +0200 Pim van Riezen wrote:
Pick two? Pi
My point exactly. It is time for those who have to pick two to get out of the game. thank you, fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge Great Works Internet 8 Pomerleau St. Biddeford, Maine
Current thread:
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Fletcher E Kittredge (Jun 25)
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Pim van Riezen (Jun 25)
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Fletcher E Kittredge (Jun 25)
- RE: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Timothy R. McKee (Jun 25)
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Fletcher E Kittredge (Jun 25)
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Dee McKinney (Jun 25)
- Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] Pim van Riezen (Jun 25)