RE: Broadband Subscriber Management

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

So what were you doing than, RFC 1483?

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaurand () xyonet com] 
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:16 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: 'William McCall'; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management


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>
>
>
>