On 04/04/2017 10:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Philip Homburg wrote:
Hooking up CPEs to an ethernet-like link without actually running a
routing protocol has its own set of issues. PPPoE framing is also
simple enough that it should not cost a lot of CPU time.
Encap/decap is always costly unless mitigated by special hardware (which
of course costs money, but in volume can be low). ISPs are doing PPPoE
because of other reasons, not because it's easy on the forwarding plane.
Most of the motivation I've been seeing revolves around the same reasons
enterprise want DHCPv6 IA_NA "that's what we've 'always' been doing and
we have the systems to support it".
I prefer IPoE, but that seems to be common here in the nordics, but the
rest of the world seems to have converged around PPPoE.
Hey,
Operators who offered ADSL built a PPPoE provisioning and all the
billing infrastructure behind and even if doing PPPoE on FTTH does not
make *any* technical sense, I heard that re-doing and changing the whole
provisioning system would cost them too much, so they went the easy way
- PPPoE over anything/everything. It is what it is and I guess we'll
have to live with it ;)
Cheers, Jan
