Re: Review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit (Informational)

what, precisely, does "assigning an IP address" have to do with "rate  
control"?

On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:50 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:

>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>>         [email protected], [email protected]
>> From: Fred Baker <[email protected]>
>> To: Vernon Schryver <[email protected]>
>>
>
>
>
>> AFAIK, it isn't. It is using the Ethernet as a local interface
>> between a router and an interface device that has a number of special
>> characteristics and is implemented in a separate chassis. Call it
>> "system engineering" if you like. The actual protocol over the
>> airwaves is PPP as known and loved, far more compact than PPPOE.
>> PPPOE is simply used to manage the local interface between the router
>> and the radio interface.
>>
>
> Ok, so why not assign IP addresses (perhaps by RFC 1918) to those
> those boxes with radios and PPPoE links to access controllers?
>
> If this particular use of PPPoE as an inter-network protocol makes
> sense, where does does using PPPoE as a replacement for IP not make
> sense?
>
> If PPPoE is not going over the radio waves, why are the access  
> controllers
> distinct boxes from the boxes ("radio interfaces"?) that connect PPPoE
> to the real ether?
>
> I suspect they are distinct boxes from the mention of the use of PPPoE
> as a (de)multiplexing tool, which gets back to the evil of using PPPoE
> as an inter-network protocol instead of IP.
>
>
> Vernon Schryver    [email protected]
>

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