🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael wrote:
> 
> "Josh Howlett" <bujfxh@shark.cse.bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:G8prup.GCw@bath.ac.uk...
> | James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote:
> | > John D Loop <loop@snt.bst.bls.com> writes:

> |
> | > Looks can be deceiving.  It's trivial to forge packets on PPPoE, and
> | > use these forged packets to highjack user sessions or snipe them out
> | > of existence as long as you have bridging at the Ethernet layer.

James,

(Great Book, BTW!)

With a Redback configuration and PPPoE, you've got a private PVC between
the customer and the Redback...no bridging involved.  Thus, I assume
session hijacking isn't an issue.

Trust me, I have tons of concerns regarding the current poor
implementation of PPPoE (e.g. disconnects, packet size mis-matches, slow
login times, etc..) but from hands-on experience, it does solve many of
the issues you get with RFC1483/bridging once you scale to a few
thousand users per router interface.


As an example, I constantly saw Cisco 6400s (DSL aggregation router)
taken to their knees due to 5-6 customer using Vicomsoft (connection
sharing software) sending constant 5-6 ARP Broadcasts/second.

Let's just hope the implementation get better, soon.

lb.
-------------------------
Lawrence Baldwin
Protocol Scientist
678-624-0924
http://www.mynetwatchman.com/about.htm - I'm under attack, now what?