On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> So what were you doing than, RFC 1483?
Back when I worked with AT&T's business-market DSL folks,
used RFC 1483 rather than annoy customers with PPPoE,
and we provided ATM to lots of CLECs that did the same.
(I don't know what the current ILEC c
So what were you doing than, RFC 1483?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:16 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: 'William McCall'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management
Way back when Verizon fir
n't have to read too many commentaries on IRB & RFC 1483 to recognize
that that approach is all that great, either.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: William McCall [mailto:william.mcc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadb
rank
-Original Message-
From: William McCall [mailto:william.mcc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management
My understanding of the PPPoA/E deal is that SPs (originally) wanted to
prevent some yahoo with a DSL mo
Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> Could you have two instances of RADIUS, one for the middle-man and
> ignore the accounting from that server?
Well...
First I'd like to thank all of those who responded off-list. To not
waste everyone's time, I'd like to throw out there that this message can
technically be
And they will never listen (TELEM).
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down the
> port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs bandwidth
> and has huge management overhead when you have
Could you have two instances of RADIUS, one for the middle-man and
ignore the accounting from that server?
--
Leigh
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Arie Vayner wrote:
>
>> You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
>> the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale
don't have the
reach themselves.
From: Larry Smith
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 2:07:42 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
CC:
Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management
On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote:
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively do
Arie Vayner wrote:
> You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
> the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale scenario which uses L2TP
> to forward the PPP session from the telco/DSL provider to the ISP.
> In many cases there would also be another L2TP hop to
You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale scenario which uses L2TP
to forward the PPP session from the telco/DSL provider to the ISP.
In many cases there would also be another L2TP hop to another
sub-ISP/customer.
On 24/04/2009, at 12:23 AM, William McCall wrote:
My understanding of the PPPoA/E deal is that SPs (originally) wanted
to
prevent some yahoo with a DSL modem from just being able to hook in to
someone's existing DSL connection and using it, so they decided to
implemement PPPoA and require some
but, here atleast, it was not a primary concern when it was first
implemented (due to the 'unlimited' manner in which DSL was sold, the
ability to get this per port, etc).
--William
>
> From: Larry Smith
> Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 2:07:42 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>
elves.
From: Larry Smith
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 2:07:42 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
CC:
Subject: Re: Broadband Subscriber Management
On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote:
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down
the port the customer is hooked
As opposed to SNMP and a script that would shut the port down via SNMP
when the customer is disabled?
Larry Smith wrote:
On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote:
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down
the port the customer is hooked to rather than u
Not disagreeing with you, just that SNMP "write" access is generally something
that admins keep either turned off or very, very tightly controlled. In that
context, how many "devices" (dslams, redbacks, etc) would have to
be "touched" via SNMP to turn off a customer (or customers) versus simply
Quite a bit of overhead. Good article here:
http://blog.ioshints.info/2009/03/adsl-overhead.html
Curtis Maurand wrote:
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down
the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs
bandwidth and has huge manageme
On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down
> the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs
> bandwidth and has huge management overhead when you have to disconnect a
> customer. I made the same
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down
the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs
bandwidth and has huge management overhead when you have to disconnect a
customer. I made the same recommendation to the St. Maarten (Dutch)
phone comp
18 matches
Mail list logo
