<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On this topic, taking advantage of LAN
capabilities may be a bit problematic for the bureaucrats as it creates
different classes of point-to-point service. Also, remember that whatever
is implemented *<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>will</span></b>* have to
comply with the spooks’ eavesdropping requirements from go to whoa...</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Rob Wise<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, 29 April 2009
1:55 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> ausnog@ausnog.net<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [AusNOG] Looks like
the NBN will be a PON variant for sure...</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Mark Smith <<a
href="mailto:marksmith@adam.com.au">marksmith@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:
.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Nick
Brown wrote:<br>
<br>
> Because from an ISP operational perspective thats a horrible thought?<br>
> You lose the ability to shape / count / monitor traffic, in addition to<br>
> the increased support because Joe next door has been browsing someone<br>
> else's $c share.</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Look up "IPoE" in Google (as silly as the
acronym is), all those<br>
problems have or are being solved (e.g. cable networks use DHCP, and all<br>
the Ericsson DSLAMs that a lot of ISPs have are (and have been for a<br>
long time) "IPoE" capable)). Cisco's ISG product can apparently turn<br>
DHCP leases into RADIUS accounting records for example.</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:
.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
The extensive use of PPPoE/A and LAC/LNS in Australia is largely due to the
monopoly carrier situation and the requirement for wholesale access
(IMHO). In many other countries DHCP-based access is far more common than
PPP and all the usual features like Radius, shaping, ACLs, etc are still
available. I'd be surprised if you found a router vendor which did not
support DHCP based subscribers these days. </span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>In a "native", not wholesale ADSL
environment, the 8 byte per-packet<br>
overhead and BRAS processing load, MTU issues and hair-pinning of PPPoE<br>
encapsulated traffic are very expensive, when you consider that the only<br>
real purpose of converting a multi-access medium like Ethernet into a<br>
point-to-point virtual link is to be able to authenticate the user. If<br>
you already know where they live (and DSLAMS can insert that circuit-id<br>
in DHCP requests), why do you care what username / password they use?</span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
Another model that is common is for each access port on the DSLAM / ONT to be
assigned a different VLAN on the trunk to the BRAS. This can also allow
for wholesale access by carrying the VLAN all the way through to the retail
provider at layer 2. With a PON it would be quite easy to have multiple
retailers access the same household and break out on different ethernet ports
on the back the ONT. Eg, internet on port 1, IPTV on port 2, voice on
port 3, etc. The household could potentially take all these services from
different retail providers.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
(who was setting up a PON in the lab last week)</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>