SIP on FTTH systems

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Feb 6 13:06:45 UTC 2014


On Thursday, February 06, 2014 02:58:14 PM Mikael 
Abrahamsson wrote:

> Why do you need to authenticate the customer? Don't your
> documentation system know the port/subscriber mapping?
> And why is this secure, instead of being tied to a
> physical connection the customer can now take the
> credentials and move? If the credentials are stolen,
> someone else can impersonate that customer.

Which is why I said DHCP was better than PPPoE.

Failing to see where we disagree.

> This worked 10 years ago, it's nothing recent.

In my previous post, I didn't say it was recent. I said it 
was better than PPPoE if you're deploying FTTH now. What I 
said was recent was that DHCP_IA and DHCP_IA_PD 
implementation has improved significantly both in BNG's as 
well as CPE.

Again, failing to see where we disagree.

> Yes? Since option 82 and friends gives you what port the
> DHCP request came in on, you now log IP/MAC connected to
> a port, and since you know to what apartment/house this
> port is physically connected to, nothing more is needed.

Again, don't see where we disagree.

This is a good thing.

Some operators provide services with no subscriber 
management (i.e., no PPPoE, no DHCP; just a static IP 
address documented about where it is, what street, what 
building, what floor, what apartment, what customer), while 
other service providers have a subscriber management 
technique, PPPoE or DHCP, to log all the same information in 
concert with the backend.

I'm just saying DHCP is better than PPPoE if you're 
greenfielding FTTH deployments today, and I'm not sure you 
entirely disagree.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140206/b15bf618/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list