[AusNOG] Looks like the NBN will be a PON variant for sure...

[Chris Chaundy]

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
*will* have to comply with the spooks' eavesdropping requirements from
go to whoa...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Rob Wise
Sent: Wednesday, 29 April 2009 1:55 PM
To: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Looks like the NBN will be a PON variant for
sure...

 

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Mark Smith <marksmith at adam.com.au>
wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:

> Because from an ISP operational perspective thats a horrible thought?
> You lose the ability to shape / count / monitor traffic, in addition
to
> the increased support because Joe next door has been browsing someone
> else's $c share.

Look up "IPoE" in Google (as silly as the acronym is), all those
problems have or are being solved (e.g. cable networks use DHCP, and all
the Ericsson DSLAMs that a lot of ISPs have are (and have been for a
long time) "IPoE" capable)). Cisco's ISG product can apparently turn
DHCP leases into RADIUS accounting records for example.


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. 

	In a "native", not wholesale ADSL environment, the 8 byte
per-packet
	overhead and BRAS processing load, MTU issues and hair-pinning
of PPPoE
	encapsulated traffic are very expensive, when you consider that
the only
	real purpose of converting a multi-access medium like Ethernet
into a
	point-to-point virtual link is to be able to authenticate the
user. If
	you already know where they live (and DSLAMS can insert that
circuit-id
	in DHCP requests), why do you care what username / password they
use?


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.

Cheers,

Rob
(who was setting up a PON in the lab last week)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090429/58cb0599/attachment.html>