[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz - Go6
jan at go6.si
Wed Apr 5 13:26:28 CEST 2017
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
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]