about IPv6 PPPoE

[Christian Kuhtz]

pppoe and more than one address is not mutually exclusive.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 4:40 PM
> To: Christian Kuhtz
> Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU
> Subject: Re: about IPv6 PPPoE
>
>
>
> >>>>> "Christian" == Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> writes:
>     Christian> there's a difference between a user's
> perspective and service
>     Christian> provider.  i was stating the service
> provider side.  bridged dsl is
>     Christian> grandfathered, being phased out, and all new
> deployment for the past
>     Christian> couple of years has been pppoe at the sp i'm
> most familiar with.  the
>     Christian> issues are around management and scalability
> of the service.
>
>   Well, it might be the going concern for residential, but
> almost no soho/business
> installations I'm familliar with will tolerate pppoe.
> There just isn't a
> point. We do not want the address negotiated, we do not
> need another password
> that could be divulged, and we *do* want some address space
> behind the box.
>
>   PPPoE deployment ==> more NAT in my opinion.
>
> ]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.
>     |  firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa,
> ON    |net architect[
> ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security
guy");  [