Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
Re: What is: ADSL High Speed Internet (Non-PPPOE) ?
said by jfmezei  :Without the pesky PPPoE stuff, you have a permanent virtual circuit between you and your ISP. There is no session to establish because you are always connected. In other words, you reconnect slightly faster, saving perhaps 3 seconds if you reboot your modem.
said by jfmezei :You can get true 1500 byte MTU since there is none of the PPPoE crap overhead. But you are still slowed by the ATM stuff. In other words, you eliminate the 0.53% PPPoE overhead. Zero point five three percent overhead eliminated. Not even a measurable difference. This means that 500KB/s download speeds would become 502KB/s. For only three times the cost, what a deal!
There is no practical advantages to having a non-PPPoE line, and it costs more than three times as much. Unless you can get a non-PPPoE line for the same price, don't bother. |
|
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Guspaz :There is no practical advantages to having a non-PPPoE line, and it costs more than three times as much. Unless you can get a non-PPPoE line for the same price, don't bother. What circumstances would make it that someone could not get a PPPoE connection but a non-PPPoE connection? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | I'm not aware that such circumstances exist. |
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
| reply to DabberDan
said by DabberDan :What circumstances would make it that someone could not get a PPPoE connection but a non-PPPoE connection? PPPoE should always be available. There are no reasons I can think of where non-PPPoE would be available but PPPoE wouldn't be.
The only significant reason a company would want non-PPPoE is for high availability since it takes the BAS and ISP Radius servers out of the equation.
But for home use the added cost and installation charge is not worth it. |
|
cutoff
@bell.ca
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :There is no practical advantages to having a non-PPPoE line, and it costs more than three times as much. Unless you can get a non-PPPoE line for the same price, don't bother. Where I work we use DSL circuits as a failover for our main WAN connections. DSL is also used for other applications that are not suitable for the WAN. Having a connection that really is "always on" is a huge advantage in these situations. PPPOE makes things easier on the ISPs and telcos for administration, but presents some challenges to the client. These are easily overcome for home use, but many business clients require something a little more robust and are willing to pay for it. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| How is it an advantage? It would be presumed that your routers would maintain a PPPoE session. In effect, this virtual device would be "always on". The only difference is at which level the handshaking takes place, be it a DSL sync or a PPPoE connection establishment.
I'll agree that you're removing potential points of failure, but you're not getting any functional difference. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to DabberDan
>What circumstances would make it that someone could not get a
>PPPoE connection but a non-PPPoE connection?
While this is rarer now, it wasn't always the case that all routers supported that PPPoE thing. Some outfit without PPPoE capability would need a real DSL service without that pesky PPPoE crap.
Some hardware has firmware that expects 1500 MTU and can't be changed. I beleive there are some older terminal servers that way.
With non-PPPOE, central management can always reach an office to perform maintenance on software, configs etc. With PPPoE, if the office has not initiated a session, then head office cannot connect to the remote office.
(Again, many routers now do their darndest to keep the pesky PPPoE connection up, but there are situations where they will give up and just wait for the local machines to try to make an outbound connection to try to raise the PPPoE session again).
In other words, just because routers now try to hide the uglyness of PPPoE doesn't mean that PPPoE is all of a sudden a great solution. |
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :How is it an advantage? It would be presumed that your routers would maintain a PPPoE session. In effect, this virtual device would be "always on". The only difference is at which level the handshaking takes place, be it a DSL sync or a PPPoE connection establishment. The trick is the "maintain" part. For some businesses the small delay while the router reestablishes the connection is unacceptable, assuming nothing goes wrong during the reconnect. On top of that I've lost count how many times Bell did maintenance on my BAS and my connection was out for a couple of hours.
For me as a residential user it was just an inconvenience. Only once I was annoyed as I was playing a game online after midnight.
The one big thing is that you can't do mlppp on a non-pppoe connection as the ppp part is required.  |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| It doesn't stop you from using multilink PPP, strictly speaking. The most effective solution would be to rent a dedicated server in Toronto and create PPP sesssions over each of the connections. The additional latency would be minimal (ideally, less than a millisecond added). Or, of course, there are other solutions to accomplish the same thing. |
|
the cerberus
join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON
3 edits | said by Guspaz :It doesn't stop you from using multilink PPP, strictly speaking. The most effective solution would be to rent a dedicated server in Toronto and create PPP sesssions over each of the connections. The additional latency would be minimal (ideally, less than a millisecond added). Or, of course, there are other solutions to accomplish the same thing. What? I don't understand... What is the point of renting a server to use PPP when you can run PPPoE from your house with no latency added for cheaper, to just go back to PPP makes little sense, it would defeat the purpose of having a non-PPP line to begin with!
Strictly speaking everyone missed the point, non PPPoE ADSL removes Bell's BAS control over your line, I would assume no throttling would be able to be applied to your line.
Question: If HSA hardly improves anything at all why does it cost so much more? Where is the money justified? Or is it Bell who controls the cost of this and thus it is just unjustified like a lot of things Bell does. I mean adding and maintaining servers locally doesn't even make much sense, wouldn't cost more money to run the local BAS's for PPPoE? |
|
