-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Friday, January 24, 2003 10:50:18 +0100 Patrik Fältström
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On fredag, jan 24, 2003, at 10:44 Europe/Stockholm, John Angelmo wrote:
>> But hey PPPoE sucks anyway ;)
> No, it doesn't.
> It is, like many technologies, perfect for certain environments. I can
> for example see local networks give access to different internets
> connecting to the Internet via PPPoE.
That could be done without MTU destruction by means of VLANs or similar.
> Of course, one can use on IP layer one of the other authentication
> mechanisms as well.
Certainly. Additionally, the incumbent has a good identification model,
good enough for legacy POTS billing, and that is where the copper pair ends
up. The registered owner gets the bill, and is responsible. If that is good
enough for POTS, it should do for billing of DSL services as well.
> It all depends on context my dear Watson.
Except that PPPoE is an ugly layering violation that must die. I have
suffered from it and I do not want to inflict it even on my enemies.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----