Cat 6a Ethernet

[BaldEagl]

Where do you live? The best I could find advertised was that 16Mbps with "powerboost"...  

I'm sitting here looking at the Comcast Services and Prices guide:

Extreme 50 (50Mbps/10Mbps) - $114.95-116.95
Ultra (22Mbps/5Mbps) - $77.95-79.95
Blast! (16Mbps/2Mbps) - $67.95-69.95
Performance (12Mbps/2Mbps) - $57.95-59.95 <-- I use this
Economy (1Mbps/384kbps) - $24.95-39.95

Prices with and without cable TV.

[Ghastly]

See the section marked "Change User Name and Password"?  

If there is no username and password configured, it's virtually guaranteed to be a standard routed ethernet configuration (ie, no PPP encapulation).  If it's PPPoE, it always requires a name and password, as that's what PPPoE is - a process that make an ethernet connections "appear" as though it's a PPP dial-up connection so that they can continue to use equipment and processes developed as much as 15 years ago to manage the connection, routing - and most importantly, the billing.  It's possible for a standard routed implementation to require a userID and password, but I've actually seen it implemented.

PPP was designed for dial-in connections, when the going baud rate was still 19,200, with the expectation of ~30Kbps "in two weeks".  Shoehorning a 50Mbps "always on" into a protocol designed for dial-up modem communications that ran 2000 to 5000 times slower just makes little sense technologically.  

<S>

[2bighorn]

Most of the FIOS here in the west is plain ethernet. Some areas are still on PPPoE, but those are rare.

[Vulcan]

See the section marked "Change User Name and Password"?  

If there is no username and password configured, it's virtually guaranteed to be a standard routed ethernet configuration (ie, no PPP encapulation).  If it's PPPoE, it always requires a name and password, as that's what PPPoE is - a process that make an ethernet connections "appear" as though it's a PPP dial-up connection so that they can continue to use equipment and processes developed as much as 15 years ago to manage the connection, routing - and most importantly, the billing.  It's possible for a standard routed implementation to require a userID and password, but I've actually seen it implemented.

PPP was designed for dial-in connections, when the going baud rate was still 19,200, with the expectation of ~30Kbps "in two weeks".  Shoehorning a 50Mbps "always on" into a protocol designed for dial-up modem communications that ran 2000 to 5000 times slower just makes little sense technologically.  

<S>

technologically speaking PPP is used for much more than that , all your modem 3G drivers, vpn drivers etc, use ppp as a convenient way to hook into a network stack and will happily pump many Mbps through.

[Ghastly]

Vulcan, Thank you.  I'd forgotten that PPTP was essentially a enhancement of PPP. 

Anyone who's ever used a VPN connection to perform some network related task, and then used a non-encapsulated routed connection for the same task between the same devices should start to get a pretty good idea why the idea of PPP encapsulation (when it isn't necessary) is high on the list of things some of us would want to avoid for a high speed connection that we would have to use. 

Can it work?  Sure!  Is it going to on a par with a connection operating on the native protocols for speed, latency and variance?

And IMO the least attractive aspect of PPPoE is that the connection is ENTIRELY in the hands of whatever device(s) are used at the CO to perform the encapsulation/decapsulation.  Which isn't much different than saying that your connection is entirely in the hands of whatever routers you pass through, except that it in this case it matters more (IMHO) because largely, the primary reason for using it at all is to leverage a previous investment in older hardware and processes that were designed for analog modem use and as a result are no longer used at anywhere near their original capacity.

Could it be that a PPPoE based FIOS connection is be better than the alternatives in your area?  Sure!   The question is, would I want to bet a one year contract that it will be, especially with respect to game play, where we need only miniscule bandwidth, but where latency - and worse, any variance in latency - is a killer? 

Them's my view and the reason why...

<S>

[Pudgie]

Hi Guys,

I just checked my DSL connection................... .......mine is PPPoA instead of PPPoE.
Since this is still a PPP type protocol it is still subject to the same limitations, right?

 

[Vulcan]

Vulcan, Thank you.  I'd forgotten that PPTP was essentially a enhancement of PPP. 

Anyone who's ever used a VPN connection to perform some network related task, and then used a non-encapsulated routed connection for the same task between the same devices should start to get a pretty good idea why the idea of PPP encapsulation (when it isn't necessary) is high on the list of things some of us would want to avoid for a high speed connection that we would have to use. 

Dunno what equipment you use by I run PPP based VPN connections and they perform flawlessly.

Two examples spring to mind, once my ISP was using a really bad international provider and my traffic to HTC was all over the show. I so VPN'd into work (SSL PPP client) and routed my traffic via there for gaming (only added a few ms to my int'l pings) until my ISP fixed it.

Second time was with a client who had a flat rate int'l connection (typically we get data capped here), so after hours I was allowed to VPN in to get downloads... err linux images and such. Once again an SSL PPP client, they had a 100Mbps national / 20Mbps int'l and I could soak up every ounce of their int'l bandwidth.

Of course if your using some pile-o-crap vpn device that cost $50 then expect low throughputs and performance, or if it was a cisco box expect even worse

[Vulcan]

Hi Guys,

I just checked my DSL connection................... .......mine is PPPoA instead of PPPoE.
Since this is still a PPP type protocol it is still subject to the same limitations, right?

 

Yeah PPPoA sucks though for implimentation, where are you? China or New Zealand? Cos I didn't think anyone else in the world still used PPPoA.

[Ghastly]

Dunno what equipment you use by I run PPP based VPN connections and they perform flawlessly.

Two examples spring to mind, once my ISP was using a really bad international provider and my traffic to HTC was all over the show. I so VPN'd into work (SSL PPP client) and routed my traffic via there for gaming (only added a few ms to my int'l pings) until my ISP fixed it.

Second time was with a client who had a flat rate int'l connection (typically we get data capped here), so after hours I was allowed to VPN in to get downloads... err linux images and such. Once again an SSL PPP client, they had a 100Mbps national / 20Mbps int'l and I could soak up every ounce of their int'l bandwidth.

Of course if your using some pile-o-crap vpn device that cost $50 then expect low throughputs and performance, or if it was a cisco box expect even worse

So are you arguing that based upon 2 good experiences with VPN's that encapsulation doesn't matter, and therefore that PPPoE isn't an issue?  
 

P.S. I know you really aren't - but the situations are somewhat parallel.  MOST VPN implementations do not perform particularly well, and certainly not as well as a routed connection  - and I doubt like heck that Verizon's PPPoE really does, either. 

{Rhetorical question} If it really doesn't matter, why wouldn't you simply use the VPN based connection all the time?

<S>

[Reschke]

Vulcan...Just so you get an idea from more than one person here in Alabama we have approximately 4 million people in the state. When you get outside of the 4 main population areas you have to use junky internet connections. DSL service is not widely available and cable internet is still the cats meow in the small towns with populations around 20k or so. FiOS isn't even readily available here in the largest population area at even 5% of the households.

By a large margin the United States of America is lagging very far behind all other nations as far as broadband internet access is concerned.

[doc1kelley]

I am running AT&T Uverse and how can I tell if it's a PPPOE connection?  Call me a dipstick but I'm just not sure how to tell.

All the Best...

   Jay

[Reschke]

I am running AT&T Uverse and how can I tell if it's a PPPOE connection?  Call me a dipstick but I'm just not sure how to tell.

All the Best...

   Jay

Uverse is PPPoE. I have it and it works fine. My only problem is ATT randomly decides to throttle back the speed from time to time to simply handle all the requests they must have from other areas.

[Vulcan]

So are you arguing that based upon 2 good experiences with VPN's that encapsulation doesn't matter, and therefore that PPPoE isn't an issue?  

P.S. I know you really aren't - but the situations are somewhat parallel.  MOST VPN implementations do not perform particularly well, and certainly not as well as a routed connection  - and I doubt like heck that Verizon's PPPoE really does, either. 

{Rhetorical question} If it really doesn't matter, why wouldn't you simply use the VPN based connection all the time?

<S>

Actually no I'm arguing based on the fact that I consult, sell, and help deploy VPN solutions into large organisations (govt/education/corporate). One of the solutions I designed and rolled out services 25,000 remote users. I'm trained and certified on solutions from the likes of Aventail and Juniper.

If most VPN implementations you've used do not work particularly well then I would suggest either the equipment deployed was sub-standard or the people deploying it failed to do so correctly.

PPPoE and PPPoA are not encrypted, so the overheads in processing are minimal. They also fulfill a need in provisioning subscriber networks across multiple physical providers.

[Vulcan]

Vulcan...Just so you get an idea from more than one person here in Alabama we have approximately 4 million people in the state. When you get outside of the 4 main population areas you have to use junky internet connections. DSL service is not widely available and cable internet is still the cats meow in the small towns with populations around 20k or so. FiOS isn't even readily available here in the largest population area at even 5% of the households.

By a large margin the United States of America is lagging very far behind all other nations as far as broadband internet access is concerned.

That's fine, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to this thread in regards to a site where fibre is deployed and in the definitions of fibre performance (and ppp for that matter). All I'm doing is correcting some technical mistakes and misunderstandings stated in this thread.

[Pudgie]

Yeah PPPoA sucks though for implimentation, where are you? China or New Zealand? Cos I didn't think anyone else in the world still used PPPoA.

I live in Farmington, NM. USA

My DSL service is being provided thru 65 yr old phone wiring/routing. My service is 1.5 MBps down, .8 up. Tested connection speed is 1.33 down, .7 up so I don't complain too much (I live approx 12,000 wire feet from the DSLAM).

Now you know better.