Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pppext-pppoe-mtu-1500-00.txt

John:

Few comments (to follow suit of Vernon and James)

-Bo


John Fitzgibbon wrote:

>>Sorry if I have missed an email.  What are your
>>plans for the submitted draft given the expressed
>>concerns on interoperability. compatability
>>and its relationship to IEEE standards.
>>    
>>
>
>Bo,
>No, you haven't missed any emails -- I just hadn't noticed that the draft was 
>posted.
>
>Looking at the comments:
>1) I like the idea of an optional tag -- that's better than negotiating an MRU 
>that could break backwards compatability.
>  
>
Good, Breaking things is not allowed

>2) I also agree that it would be better to restart LCP if MRU-sized 
>Echo-Requests go unanswered, (rather than trying to renegotiate).
>3) I understand the concern that allowing for a PPPoE header in the frame is 
>an IEEE issue, but, frankly, I don't want the hassle of taking this to IEEE.
>
4) It is entirely appropriate that anything suggested should be an 

>informational RFC at best -- I confess I missed the fact that PPPoE is itself 
>informational.
>
>I'll try to revise the proposal to reflect these observations and resubmit -- 
>even if the result is informational and/or "non-IETF", I value the feedback. 
>
>A question: is this a suitable forum for allocating a new tag?
>  
>
for PPPoE tags, yes

>Some background on my rationale:
>
>  
>
If SBC does not sign up to make the corresponding PPPoE changes, you
are still stuck.  Given that they are reluctant, you better be sure
they will make the changes.  Suggest you ask about cost and schedule.

It may be wise to review the google based 'marketing assessment'
with ISPs, such as SBC, to determine if this really has market
value and justifies the effort.


>This is a real problem for me, and it's not performance related -- I have 
>residential DSL service and my provider, SBC, only offer PPPoE, (and they 
>seem *very* reluctant to change). Since I write network test software, the 
>lack of transparency resulting from an MTU of 1492 causes me some headaches. 
>Given that I'm reasonably sure the hardware is capable of handling a 1500 
>byte MTU, the PPPoE limit seems overly restrictive. My thinking was that if I 
>couldn't change SBC, I'd try to change PPPoE. Upon investigation, (google), 
>it turned out that I was not alone -- many people have reported problems 
>arising out of the widespread use of PPPoE by broadband providers. 
>Presumably, there are many, many more who simply aren't aware that certain 
>relatively obscure connectivity issues may be related to the PPPoE link to 
>their service provider.
>
>Thanks to all for the feedback,
>John Fitzgibbon
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext