[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

On 04/04/2017 10:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Philip Homburg wrote:
>
>> Hooking up CPEs to an ethernet-like link without actually running a
>> routing protocol has its own set of issues. PPPoE framing is also
>> simple enough that it should not cost a lot of CPU time.
>
> Encap/decap is always costly unless mitigated by special hardware (which
> of course costs money, but in volume can be low). ISPs are doing PPPoE
> because of other reasons, not because it's easy on the forwarding plane.
> Most of the motivation I've been seeing revolves around the same reasons
> enterprise want DHCPv6 IA_NA "that's what we've 'always' been doing and
> we have the systems to support it".
>
> I prefer IPoE, but that seems to be common here in the nordics, but the
> rest of the world seems to have converged around PPPoE.

Hey,

Operators who offered ADSL built a PPPoE provisioning and all the 
billing infrastructure behind and even if doing PPPoE on FTTH does not 
make *any* technical sense, I heard that re-doing and changing the whole 
provisioning system would cost them too much, so they went the easy way 
- PPPoE over anything/everything. It is what it is and I guess we'll 
have to live with it ;)

Cheers, Jan