Re: draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-00

> From: Diamantis Kourkouzelis <[email protected]>

>  What are your thoughts on figure 3 of the draft? The modem is pppoa,
>  the dslam initiates the pppoe connection (transparent to the modem)
>  and the bras accepts the 1500 mru requested by the modem (assuming
>  the port mtu on the bras can support at least 1508).
>
>  How does that affect the user or impose any requirement for a modem
>  firmware upgrade? Any data being sent by the dslam towards the modem will
>  still be at 1500 max (pppoa).

What magic switches the customer premises equipment (CPE or end
user DSL modem) from PPPoE to PPPoA?  How do you reach out and
toggle switches in those bazillions of CPE that were just today
mentioned as justifying this proposal without a problematic remote
reconfiguration and reboot of zillions of CPE and probably a new
firmware download to change the hold-reset-button-with-paper-clip
default for the PPPoE/PPPoA switch?

I wonder also how much market there would be for a protocol that would
give providers more classes of customer, new DSLAM+CPE that likes PPPoA
vs. old DSLAM+CPE that prefers PPPoE, merely so that some customers
would have MTUs of 1500.

However, as far as I'm concerned, switching the CPE-DSLAM link to PPPoA
would amount to switching to from PPPoE to standard IP over PPP as far
as the IETF is concerned.  The provider's internal, private links seem
outside the perview of the IETF.  It strikes me as perverse to
re-encapsulate perfectly good IP/.../ATM packets in and out of
IP/.../PPPoE/.../ATM in the broadband remote access server (BRAS), but
none of my business.  If a vendor has a wonderful SuperDuperUltra-
WideBandSpreadSpectrum or other magic to move IP packets between a
DSLAM and a service provider's routers, then great and why should the
IETF interfere, give permission, or be involved at all?


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

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