PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
Frank Bulk - iName.com
frnkblk at iname.com
Thu Oct 29 20:12:46 UTC 2009
Others commented on things I already had in mind only the username/password
thing of PPPoE. We use the same username/pw on the modem as the customer
users for their e-mail, so a password change necessitates a truck roll (I
know, I know, TR-069). We started with PPPoE for our FTTH, because we were
familiar with it, but we moved over to a "VLAN per service" model which ends
up something like RBE in function. We can track customers based on the
Option 82 info, so we're good to go in terms of tracking them.
From: JD [mailto:jdupuy-list at socket.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:21 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: PPPoE vs. Bridged ADSL
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.
More information about the NANOG