RE: I-D ACTION:draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-01.txt
Vernon Schryver <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: "Peter Arberg" <[email protected]> > > The subscriber session is a ***pair of*** PPP sessions > > running over a combination of PPPoA and PPPoE. > > No it is suppose to show 1 PPP session here. > less than 1500, and since in this diagram the DSLAM is a "media" > converter, converting the PPPoA session to a PPPoE session, the All of that belongs in the draft, not least because it is not exactly, precisely true that exactly 1 PPP session is involved. > Not sure I follow you. The PPP state machine in the DSLAM is not > really existing, all the DSLAM is doing is initiate a PPPoE discovery > state when a PPP host sends a LCP conf.req. and as soon as the > PPPoE discover statge is done, it will forward the conf.req. Is the configure-request potentially modified with the appropriate MRU? If not, then I don't see any point in the PPPoE discovery. If so, then it is wrong to say that only 1 PPP session is involved. Maybe fewer than 2 sessions, such as 1.2 sessions or 1 perverted/NAT-like PPP session, but not one, real, clean, pure PPP session. Vernon Schryver [email protected] _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext