In reply to a post by weelan:

> Name one 1gbps ISP-supplied ...

I too would be interested to see a router succeed in 900mbps PPPoE. One doesn't need to find an old router to test this, many routers allow toggling offloading. I don't think any 1Gbps router without offloading can achieve that.

To be fair MikroTik don't use any PPPoE hardware offload, and can manage gigabit class PPPoE connections on many of their models. Most models running quad-core ARM processors from the last few years have oodles of capacity.

Interesting, however as far as I can see all MikroTik Quad-core routers have a 10Gbps port, that's why I said "1Gbps routers". Otherwise I think i9 can also do gigabit PPPoE, unsurprisingly. My point is that if we need 10 Gbps routers to do 1Gbps PPPoE without offloading, then it stinks to require PPPoE.

I don't think you can have it all ways. A router with quad-core ARM can do multi-gigabit, but you exclude it for being "too powerful" because it has a single 10G port. A vanilla BT Smarthub can do gigabit, but you exclude it because BT optimised the design.

In short, all the ISP-supplied routers for gigabit services are capable of gigabit, and most use PPPoE. They have the necessary software and/or hardware tweaks to make this work. So what are you worried about? They are built down to a price. If supporting PPPoE made the routers significantly more expensive, and overall it were cheaper to use IPoE and DHCP (including all the central office kit required and customer support), then you can be darned sure they would do that. Conversely, the fact that they don't proves that overall the PPPoE solution is cost-effective for them.

Talktalk have chosen IPoE. I *believe* that was primarily driven by their IPTV architecture, and the support for multicast. But for whatever reason, that works fine for them too.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Talktalk have chosen IPoE. I *believe* that was primarily driven by their IPTV architecture, and the support for multicast. But for whatever reason, that works fine for them too.

They used IPoE before Youview was even a thing.

It's just Openreach's multicast service, sent to Youview boxes. It's the exact same multicast to Youview boxes used by BT and formerly Plusnet, who both use PPPoE.

PPP is used because it's easier to wholesale.

But wasn't there "TalkTalk TV" even before YouView?

There was Tiscali TV, which Talktalk acquired in late 2009 and then rebranded. Tiscali TV was multicast.
Talktalk were still requiring user credentials during that time period.

I'm not exactly sure when Talktalk switched to IPoE but it wasn't/isn't a requirement for multicast.

I was quite a fan of Tiscali TV. We weren't allowed an aerial on our building and Tiscali TV had the Freeview channels (or whatever it was called at the time) broadcast over the multicast.
It has taken over a decade for that to be replicated.

I'd have thought an overlay network within an exchange would be quite a good idea. But QinQ works although you'd need a 4096^3 to cover the nation, so you'd need a third stacked frame. How you split that across customers, exchanges and CP's is another matter of course and it seems to be a nightmare to configure...

I'm not against PPP or the fact L2TPv2 bundles tunnels - was just providing a scenario for the OP's original argument, that the fact we need any processing power CPE-side to provide a service rather than just plain ethernet.

So how are leased lines handled from beyond the ODF in an exchange? I'm pretty sure some exchanges, eg in the City, will have more than 4096 leased lines served if they're using the same CVLAN set up, but I'm not sure how. I know BTW has it's silly EtherFlow and Etherway's, rather than TTB's simpler just-give-a-bearer to an ISP. Again, not sure how CityFibre operates, but curious.

But how would you expand the leased line framework to manage what is effectively CityFibre's Ethernet Flex product (i.e. leased line over FTTP with 200mb committed and 1000 burst) for every premises?

In reply to a post by zzing123:

I'd have thought an overlay network within an exchange would be quite a good idea. But QinQ works although you'd need a 4096^3 to cover the nation, so you'd need a third stacked frame. How you split that across customers, exchanges and CP's is another matter of course and it seems to be a nightmare to configure...

2 stacked gives 16 million VLANs: more than enough for 50% take up nationwide.

So how are leased lines handled from beyond the ODF in an exchange? I'm pretty sure some exchanges, eg in the City, will have more than 4096 leased lines served if they're using the same CVLAN set up

They go around the GEA kit that we use for FTTP and straight into switches or routers rather than via an Openreach switch. That can have its own Q-in-Q or use a routed interface and advertise the subnet to the rest of the network via an IGP.

But how would you expand the leased line framework to manage what is effectively CityFibre's Ethernet Flex product (i.e. leased line over FTTP with 200mb committed and 1000 burst) for every premises?

Set those parameters on the 802.1p shaping on the OLT. Don't allow the backhaul from the OLT to congest until it hits the ISP, then it's their problem.

My router has been double jabbed, and I have recent installed a booster, will it get this PPPoE Virus?

Interesting. So a simpler, cheaper, flatter network and proves GEA is a load of unnecessary [censored] that really should be handled as part of a larger backhaul network (whether wholesale or directly) and that Ofcom should think harder about what to regulate.

You'd probably need to trunk connections into fatter connections to the switches to save space (I don't know why the OLTs only have 10GbE and not something faster or even DWDM directly), but it seems a lot simpler, cheaper and more scalable.