Why PPPoE is bad?

[Crimliar]

Or you could use the OECD data from https://www.oecd.org/digital/broadband/broadband-statistics/
Umm why are there all those "Rural" European Third-World countries (sarcasm) at the top of the leader boards?

 

[follower]

PPPoE isn't as bad as people want it to be. Yes we lose 8 bytes per 1500 for the header, and yes it may seem archaic to you, but it's working very well for me an millions of others.
Next you'll be telling me driving on the right-hand-side of the road is more efficient. Grow up.
@ahyrych sorry but I'm leaving the thread - some things I just won't stand for.
Welcome to the ignore list @follower

PPPoE is garbage and so old tech. That's why a lot of countries and ISPs are changing PPPoE to DHCP these days. That's the fact.

 

[follower]

Or you could use the OECD data from https://www.oecd.org/digital/broadband/broadband-statistics/
Umm why are there all those "Rural" European Third-World countries (sarcasm) at the top of the leader boards?

Where? Mobile? Where? Where is UK?

 

[Crimliar]

Yawn - if you actually bothered to read more than just the first graph!

 

[Crimliar]

Broadband in most of the UK separates infrastructure from service provision - a situation where PPPoE (and other protocols) can have advantages compared to DHCP.
As users, we have to take what we are given - which in the UK is mostly DHCP, that may well change over time.

 

[follower]

Yawn - if you actually bothered to read more than just the first graph!

I don't want to see your personal opinion. I said "EU is still providing old Internet Service except few countries."
There are over 196 countries around world.
EU: 27 Countries.
OECD: 38 Countries.
So OECD data can't be trusted at all. Speedtest.net is more accurate.
How many EU countries on top?
There is a discussion about UK's PPPoE at UK forum.
Subject: Why do most ISP's use PPPOE? Anyway to get them to stop?

Why do most ISP's use PPPOE? Anyway to get them to stop?

I wasn't sure which section of the forum to post this topic within. If this is the wrong area could it be moved please. But my question is a general one, and that is why do most ISPs in the UK seem to want to use the very old and outdate PPPOE connection type? Is there any particular reason for...

www.ispreview.co.uk

So, PPPoE is still great? Nobody says it. Interesting.
"PPPoE is outdated technology and, at the moment, is increasingly being replaced by DHCP or (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol)."

What is PPPoE?

PPPoE enhances the PPP connection and allows multiple users to use it. Let’s look at it in more detail and see how it differs from DHCP.

nordvpn.com

 

[glens]

my provider give me a choice (FTTB), or up to 1 GB/s with PPPoE, or 350 Mb/s with static IP, price the same (about)

Internet routable IP address, unfiltered? Might be more useful than 3x bandwidth behind CGNAT.

 

[Ripshod]

PPPoE doesn't mean CGNAT.

 

[RMerlin]

Yes, skipping encapsulation might be better on paper, but overall PPPoE itself is fine. I have 1 Gbps FTTH over PPPoE, and I'm even breaking 940 Mbps because my ISP overprovisions, which compensates for any overhead PPPoE might introduce. I have a 3 ms ping time with google.com.

Configuration ain't that hard: you add a username and a password to your configuration on your router. As easy as that.

Packet losses have nothing to do with encapsulation. I have zero packet losses here.

People too often confuse PPPoE with ADSL because the two were often used together. The issues back then weren't caused by PPPoE but by the DSL technology, trying to carry large amount of data over often 20+ years old copper pairs that were never intended for that kind of usage.

 

[Ripshod]

and I'm even breaking 940 Mbps because my ISP overprovisions

That's a point I was going to raise. ISPs do give a little headroom to compensate for what is really a very small overhead.

 

[glens]

PPPoE doesn't mean CGNAT.

Didn't (even intend to) suggest such. Merely what I'd said.

 

[Ripshod]

Didn't (even intend to) suggest such. Merely what I'd said.

I'm sorry, I must have misread your meaning.

 

[heysoundude]

The issues back then weren't caused by PPPoE but by the DSL technology, trying to carry large amount of data over often 20+ years old copper pairs that were never intended for that kind of usage.

This is the important part that most people don't take into consideration - the greater infrastructure,
The copper pairs that I use for my connection are probably closer to 50-60yrs old, but I still get 50/10Mbps - solidly, reliably.
Fibre will become prevalent when people NEED 100+Mbps symmetrically, and/or the cost of maintenance is more cost prohibitive than replacing it with glass. We're not there yet, and may never be in my lifetime

 

[follower]

Yes, skipping encapsulation might be better on paper, but overall PPPoE itself is fine. I have 1 Gbps FTTH over PPPoE, and I'm even breaking 940 Mbps because my ISP overprovisions, which compensates for any overhead PPPoE might introduce. I have a 3 ms ping time with google.com.

Configuration ain't that hard: you add a username and a password to your configuration on your router. As easy as that.

Packet losses have nothing to do with encapsulation. I have zero packet losses here.

People too often confuse PPPoE with ADSL because the two were often used together. The issues back then weren't caused by PPPoE but by the DSL technology, trying to carry large amount of data over often 20+ years old copper pairs that were never intended for that kind of usage.

That's your own experience. However, there are a lot of issues with gamers. A lot of PPPoE users have Lagging, Packet loss, Connection issue(disconnection) etc. Download and Upload speed are also related in connected users in real time. Your ping is fine. But Many PPPoE users have bad ping, not good enough ping for FPS games. Some gamers don't care. But a lot of gamers do care about it.

Sometimes, configuration is hard for PPPoE users like NAT Type issue, Disconnection issue etc, NAT Type issue can be solved with Port Forwarding usually. If PPPoE users need or want routers which are not come from ISPs they may have gaming issue a lot. They have to set up for the correct and stable connection. Sometimes, it's impossible to do unless they change their ISP. I still can see a lot of gamers are having trouble with PPPoE. That's why they change ISPs. Many PPPoE gamers can't be Hosts with certain games, because they are using PPPoE. The only fix is changing ISP. None of them work with it like Port Forwarding, UPnP, PPPoE configuration something like that. Some players can't even use Voice Chat between certain players. It's like this.
User A can hear and talk to User B. But User B can't hear and talk to User A except other players, this also can be solved with Port Forwarding.
But it doesn't work every time.

Packet loss. You don't have it. That's good. But many gamers have it, mostly PPPoE users.

 

[RMerlin]

But Many PPPoE users have bad ping, not good enough ping for FPS games.

As I'm saying, that's unrelated to PPPoE, otherwise every PPPoE users would be affected.

Cable users who use DHCP have worse latency than FTTH or Fastpath DSL over PPPoE users, as Docsis 2/3 adds 8-10 ms of latency at the first hop.

configuration is hard for PPPoE users like NAT Type issue

PPPoE encapsulation has nothing to do with NAT.

Many PPPoE gamers can't be Hosts with certain games, because they are using PPPoE.

That's incorrect. PPPoE merely transport packets between the router and the concentrator, the TCP/IP packets within it are unrelated.

None of them work with it like Port Forwarding, UPnP, PPPoE configuration something like that.

Again, that's incorrect. I have port forwards setup to receive remote backups from a VPS, and another port forward to allow my employee to remotely access a VM here. PPPoE, once again, has nothing to do with port fowarding, different layers.

I don't think you really understand what PPPoE is, and what packet encapsulation does.

Just because someone has issues while using PPPoE doesn't mean that this is the cause. A bad ISP is, regardless of if they use DOCSIS, PPPoE, IPoE or whatever. There is no technical reason for PPPoE to be the root cause here.

 

[sfx2000]

Just because someone has issues while using PPPoE doesn't mean that this is the cause. A bad ISP is, regardless of if they use DOCSIS, PPPoE, IPoE or whatever. There is no technical reason for PPPoE to be the root cause here.

Exactly - It's more of an ISP issue than a technical issue - PPPoE is fine...

 

[Tech9]

I just realized I mostly own rural places in 3rd World countries so... someone has ducks, goats, buffalo for sale?

 

[sfx2000]

I just realized I mostly own rural places in 3rd World countries so... someone has ducks, goats, buffalo for sale?

FWIW - this is perhaps a skewed view... and one that perhaps does not appreciate the realities of the markets...

The developing world is actually ahead in many ways for wireless access - 4G/5G-FWA is pretty active in those markets...

Mostly because they have little legacy cruft - ISDN, DSL, Cable, 2G/3G wireless - so it's largely greenfield - optical fiber to cell towers, and Fixed Wireless from there.

I fly into Germany, and my iPhone roams on Vodafone DE 2G/Edge - going into our factory in Vietnam, it's 5G, and it's faster than what we see here in the US

I've heard similar stories for Africa - it's all greenfield - so it's cheap and fast - yeah, a lot of it is ZTE and Huawei infra for wireless - but it's an extremely competitive market...

It's like looking at art - some folks see it for what it is, and others reflect their biases on what they see - @Tech9 - you've shown your bias and world view... I would hate to be your neighbors in your 3rd world properties...

 

[follower]

As I'm saying, that's unrelated to PPPoE, otherwise every PPPoE users would be affected.

Cable users who use DHCP have worse latency than FTTH or Fastpath DSL over PPPoE users, as Docsis 2/3 adds 8-10 ms of latency at the first hop.


PPPoE encapsulation has nothing to do with NAT.


That's incorrect. PPPoE merely transport packets between the router and the concentrator, the TCP/IP packets within it are unrelated.


Again, that's incorrect. I have port forwards setup to receive remote backups from a VPS, and another port forward to allow my employee to remotely access a VM here. PPPoE, once again, has nothing to do with port fowarding, different layers.

I don't think you really understand what PPPoE is, and what packet encapsulation does.

I do know what PPPoE and encapsultation.

Just because someone has issues while using PPPoE doesn't mean that this is the cause. A bad ISP is, regardless of if they use DOCSIS, PPPoE, IPoE or whatever. There is no technical reason for PPPoE to be the root cause here.

I don't think you know about the world and what I'm talking about. You are talking about Protocol itself. I'm talking about PPPoE Service from ISPs.
You are only and always talking about 'I', 'My', 'Mine'. Your experience is based on your experience. There are many players who are having trouble with PPPoE connection for Gaming around the world, such as Configuration issue, ISP issue(PPPoE) more and more. PPPoE services are not always same. A lot of ISP's PPPoE services are different. Routers and Modems from ISPs are different. That's why some gamers change ISP. They change PPPoE to DHCP. The problem is gone. Router settings are 100% same. The only difference is PPPoE to DHCP. Some ISP's engineers even suggest changing ISP or Service types, because they have a PPPoE service issue with certain games. PPPoE is changed in to DHCP these days.

 

[follower]

I just realized I mostly own rural places in 3rd World countries so... someone has ducks, goats, buffalo for sale?

I can sell rattle snakes and roadrunners. Do you want them?