[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
about IPv6 PPPoE
- Subject: about IPv6 PPPoE
- From: [email protected] (Michael Richardson)
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:40:02 -0400
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:45:04 EDT." <[email protected]>
>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Kuhtz <[email protected]> writes:
Christian> there's a difference between a user's perspective and service
Christian> provider. i was stating the service provider side. bridged dsl is
Christian> grandfathered, being phased out, and all new deployment for the past
Christian> couple of years has been pppoe at the sp i'm most familiar with. the
Christian> issues are around management and scalability of the service.
Well, it might be the going concern for residential, but almost no soho/business
installations I'm familliar with will tolerate pppoe. There just isn't a
point. We do not want the address negotiated, we do not need another password
that could be divulged, and we *do* want some address space behind the box.
PPPoE deployment ==> more NAT in my opinion.
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [