Re: pppcn
James Carlson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Karl Fox writes: > From "PPP Design and Debugging," by James Carlson, pages 68-69: [...] > P.S. Thank you, James Carlson, for such a powerful tool. *blush* Thanks! There may be an underlying issue here that's related to what Vern Schryver said. Is the link usable at all with such an atrocious RTT? If it's for the usual sort of web-surfing activities, the answer seems to be "no," in as much as the PPP RTTs are just the tip of an iceberg. "Building the unusable" probably shouldn't be an explicit part of the working group charter. But what of transaction-oriented systems? Suppose the end node intends to do only one or two packet exchanges with some peer before ditching the link? In that case, the PPP RTTs could loom comparatively large in the picture. (This is sort of analogous to the situation with modems: ordinarily, the training time is insignificant in the overall usage, but for transaction-oriented systems where only a few hundred bytes are sent, it's a killer, and there are thus special 1200bps "fast-connect" modems designed just for that purpose.) I think the pre-loading scheme still fixes the PPP problem in this case, and is both simpler than and equivalent to the "masked" approach, but it's possible that a bigger fix (e.g., dispensing with link layer authentication and perhaps PPP as well and turning to network or higher layer authentication) might be better. The question turns back to a perennial favorite: so, what is the actual problem to be solved? -- James Carlson, IP Systems Group <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.234W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.497N Fax +1 781 442 1677