[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       inet-access
Subject:    Re: Wireless (was Re: Redback (and cisco) and DSL)
From:       Adam Rothschild <asr () latency ! net>
Date:       2001-01-29 15:16:58
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:17:53AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> > - Unix box assigns RFC1918-compliant address to wireless user via
> >   DHCP.
> 
> Most users don't like this, and will look for another ISP that doesn't do
> this. I agree with them.

The tunneled IP will be globally routable.  It's the "real" IP they're
given initially that won't be.  I'm not suggesting people NAT their
users; that would most definitely be lame.

> How is PPPOE any different that the 'tunneling' methods you suggest?

Unless I'm missing something, it's _far_ easier to sniff (and in turn,
commit theft of service).  Then again, for residential users, it's
quite possible that's not as much of a concern as I imagined it would
be.

-adam
-
List archives can be found at: <http://www.moongroup.com/inet.php>
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently.   inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]