|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] "evils of PPPOE"
|
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > My objection to PPPoE is very minor. It just seems strange to me that I
> > have to "log in" to a so-called "always on" connection. And with a static
> > IP, at that! In a previous location I had cable modem (without a
> > staticIP), and there was no requirement for me to log in at all. The
> > cable modem just re-established a connection and got a new IP whenever the
> > power was cycled. I just plugged my router into it, and there I was, on
> > the internet.
>
> Don't you have to "log on" to a Windows network? Or, for that
> matter, to any properly secured (read, IPSec) WAN? Why not log on to
> a network connection? It makes complete sense to me, and is the
> point of including the PPP at all.
Nope, when I had cable modem, I didn't have to log into the network. My
Windows box(es) didn't require a machine login, although of course Linux
always does. I'm not bitching about PPPoE, it just seemed weird to me
after having the previous cable connection. But apparently this is the
norm and that was the weird situation.
When I saw people complaining about PPPoE, I thought perhaps there were
some actual reason to dislike it instead of my mild irritation, which was
mostly based on my not being used to it.
> Also, ISPs already have structures in place for metering and billing
> based on PPP logs. Letting them use PPP on their end makes the
> transition to DSL easier, which is a good thing (and a major point
> in Red Back's article).
Yes, I noticed that.
> Some may not like the fact that ISPs can
> bill by the minute (even though none that I know of DO, mind you).
My dad actually complains that they *don't*! He uses the internet mostly
for email. I doubt that he logs on more than five hours in a whole month,
but he has to pay for unlimited access. He's extremely... frugal.
> Also, Red Back stresses in a couple of places that they're proposing
> PPPoE as a *crossover* protocol, eventually to be replaced by
> something more appropriate to the medium. That time just hasn't
> quite come yet. There're always growing pains.
Yes, I noticed they did that, but I am wondering why it can't simply be a
replacement for the other protocols. It certainly seems better then the
other ones described in the paper. Of course it will be replaced
eventually, just like any technology, but it doesn't need to be seen as an
explicitly temporary measure.
> > Since I run a web server (which Earthlink has no problem with), I run a
> > cron job to make sure that if for some reason the connection goes away, it
> > gets reestablished This doesn't happen often.
>
> Interesting. That's not necessary on my Speakeasy connection. (That
> is, there's no PPP timeout with Speakeasy service.)
I don't know that there's a timeout on Earthlink either, but one time when
I was out of state, I noticed I couldn't access my website, so I
hypothesized that something knocked me offline. So when I had the
opportunity, I created the cron job, just in case.
Wayne
_________________________________________
Need an experienced programmer who knows
both the Unix and Microsoft worlds?
Then you need to hire wayne:
http://hirewayne.com
wayne@hirewayne.com
_________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|