[Ti] DSL

[Matthew Fosberg]

On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 07:22  AM, Jesse Brown wrote:
> Most use PPOE, some still use PPOA (Point to Point over ATM) I suppose 
> but
> it's not a mainstream protocol. The manually configured IP's or 
> however the
> IP is configured still has to ride on a transport protocol and that is 
> PPOE
> for the majority of DSL providers (Covad, Verizon, Pacbell, SBC, etc). 
> There
> is a petition to get rid of PPOE at
> <http://www.petitiononline.com/pppoe/petition.html> but it only has 290
> signatures at present.
The DSL provider I used to work for will NEVER get rid of PPOE, it 
allows them too many options, not the least of which is having some 
control over how many users are allowed to login from each account, and 
delivery of specific services. In addition, in their opinion, they were 
better able to log usage in case of problems with users. I did not care 
for the system, but the guys in charge LOVED it.

> I have had no success in hubbing a router, DSL modem and several CPUs 
> and
> having the PPOE connection assign a public IP to the router which then
> provides NAT services over the same ENET port to one or more CPUs on 
> the
> hub.

Hmm, that sounds odd to me. The only way we could successfully get 
multiple computers on the same single user account was for the user to 
have a router which "we did not support" inline. Current iterations of 
the ABS now provide the ability to use PPOE and would work with the 
system, but previously they would not.

> Whether or not you hate PPOE it is the standard for transporting IP 
> packets
> in the majority of Digital Subscriber Line installations in the US.
>
>
> Jesse

I have to agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, current 
providers are not going to get rid of it without some overwhelming 
business reason to.

Matt