Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior]
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:35:25 -0400 "Drash, Jim [EESUS]" wrote:
I think we are in violent agreement. I don't like the IP->MAC->Customer mapping, it is forgeable, but it is the only one I know we have available. I agree with you that it is not the only possible mapping. If you can point me to a better existing mechanism, I would be grateful. Since DHCP maps a MAC to and IP address but not to a user, maybe there is a technology that would provide this missing piece. Low and behold, there is one: PPP and more specifically PPPoE (Over Ethernet) provides just the functionality that some people are looking for. A number of broadband
At 11:19 AM 6/25/2001 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote: providers are using PPPoE to fill the need of not only assigning an ip address to a connection but associating that connection with a user.
Note the key phrase "better mechanism" in my statement. Many people consider PPPoE an inferior technology. It reduces reliability and usability of the product while raising the cost by increasing complexity and placing unacceptable restrictions on the customer. PPPoE adds an unnecessary layer on the network stack. Thus it consumes extra resources and gives one more component to fail and debug. PPPoE used as an authentication mechanism negates the "aways on" advantage of IPoE networks. I don't like it when vendor engineers impose restrictions on customers to satisfy the engineers design problems. Good engineers design systems that make the network simple, easy to use, secure, cheap and end-to-end. They don't come up with ways to deliberately degrade the value of the network. Personally, I think PPPoE belongs in the "bad idea box" along with IPoATM and MPLS.
I would propose that if DHCP (or any other technology) does not do what you want, see if there is another that will. If there is not build your own and don't whine about it. Since the ISC DHCPD is open source, you can change it as you see fit. If you change it, you should contribute back. However, do not assume that Ted or anyone else will do this for you or support it if you contribute back.
Hum, you must be thinking of someone else. Properly designed systems based on DHCP do exactly what I want. My complaint is with people who don't design networks properly. Economic, Fast, Secure, Reliable and easy-to-use: If you can't design a network system that is has all five qualities, best copy the system of someone who can. Copying other's work until you reach master level is a good thing. I do so appreciate your suggestions about how open software projects work. Lots of people think that because I have been doing this for so long, I don't need these little reminders. But was one gets older, the details slip out of your mind, like sea water running through the fingers of your cupped hands. Time for a walk on the beach. regards, fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge Great Works Internet 8 Pomerleau St. Biddeford, Maine
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:00:02 +0200 Pim van Riezen wrote:
Pick two?
Pi
My point exactly. It is time for those who have to pick two to get out of the game. thank you, fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge Great Works Internet 8 Pomerleau St. Biddeford, Maine
We worked with PPPoE for a while. None of the Windows implementations work well. They are terrible. We ended up requiring all customers to buy a dual Ethernet router that supported it. That works a little better. Tim McKee -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Fletcher E Kittredge Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 17:22 To: Pim van Riezen Cc: North America Network Operators Group Mailing List; Ted Lemon Subject: Re: Cable Modem [really PPPoE is inferior] On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:00:02 +0200 Pim van Riezen wrote:
Pick two?
Pi
My point exactly. It is time for those who have to pick two to get out of the game. thank you, fletcher -- Fletcher Kittredge Great Works Internet 8 Pomerleau St. Biddeford, Maine
Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
Personally, I think PPPoE belongs in the "bad idea box" along with IPoATM and MPLS.
IPoATM for sure, but MPLS also ? I have my thoughts similiar to MPLS but until I get my Sycamore boxes up and running, I don't know how bad it will be. Under CISCO it has limitations for sure. /Dee
participants (4)
-
Dee McKinney
-
Fletcher E Kittredge
-
Pim van Riezen
-
Timothy R. McKee