Re: PPPoE/IPoE, any recommendations for upgrade?

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

There are alternative solutions.  We're looking at using one from ABN for a
customer that perseveres all of the AAA functionality and supports IPoE
with the same integrationhooks as PPPoE and handles both at the same time
to make transition easier.  The project is being staged right now but
anyone who wants to be kept in the loop in how it goes can contact me off
list.
On Jun 8, 2015 11:34 PM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor () gmail com> wrote:

> Suspend or shut down a user is easy, just disable their port on the DSLAM
> or change their port to a VLAN that only allows them to access/pay their
> bill.
>
> Going to PPPoE to IPoE increases the net throughput right?
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Nasser Heidari <nasser () rasana net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > - If you are already using IPoE, tell more why should I upgrade?
> > >
> > > The IPoE and IPoEoADSL I have done didn't need radius, didn't need BNG,
> > didn't
> > > need a lot of the complications you're talking about. It could
> basically
> > be realised in
> > > any decent L3 switch as default gateway for the customers instead of
> > needing BNG.
> > > So I'd say if you want to get full potential of IPoE you need to do
> > simplification as
> > > well, otherwise there is little use in doing the work if he only thing
> > you
> > want to
> > > change is from IPoPPPoE to IPoE encapsulation and keep all the other
> > stuff
> > you're
> > > doing.
> > >
> > > IPoPPPoE requires special CPE and router at your end to achieve high
> > speeds,
> > > because they need to support encapsulation/decapsulation of packets at
> > whatever
> > > speed you provide. The number of devices that do this is a lot smaller
> > than the
> > > ones that do decent speeds with just IPoE.
> > >
> > > So some people will say migrating to IPoE from IPoPPPoE buys them
> > nothing,
> > > because they feel they need all the mechanisms they currently use.
> > > Greenfield deployments might say "hey, we can do this without a lot of
> > the
> > needed
> > > mechanisms for IPoPPPoE" and save a lot of money and complication.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. I'm would like this simplicity if I could keep
> same
> > functionalities I have in PPPoE. By functionalities I mean:
> >         - AAA
> >         - Triple-ply services and classified accounting per service
> >         - Possibility to suspend a user service in case of over-quota
> >         - applying fair-share policies
> >
> > Do I have any option to have simplicity and same functionality together?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nasser