re: draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-00
Vernon Schryver <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: Diamantis Kourkouzelis <diamondk at redback.com> > The modem was never pppoe to begin with. The pppoe > session will be initiated by the dslam when it receives > the lcp confreq from the modem and will forward it > to the bras (over pppoe) once the pppoe session gets > established. > > When the dslam receives the lcp confack from the bras, > it will strip the pppoe header and send it to the modem. > The dslam is responsible for the vpi/vci to pppoe session-id > mapping. As far as the modem is concerned, there is no pppoe > segment in the network, unless the bras naks the 1500 mru > down to 1492, as it would do today. That implies that what looks to end users like PPPoA service but with 1492 MTU is common today. Is that true? How common is it? Could you point to a tutorial on why PPPoE is used such situations, in series with and behind the scenes of PPPoA? Is it to use 802.3 networks ultimately connected to the provider's routers? Are you talking about the issues discussed in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haag-pppext-spppoe-00.txt ? Have I forgotten some discussion of that ID in this mailing list? I can't convince Google to find any references to it here. Vernon Schryver [email protected] _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext