comment on draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-02.txt
Paul Jakma <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, I have a question about this draft: Why would it not suffice to simply specify a "I can ignore the RFC2516 1492 limit" tag in PADI and PADRs? Indeed, why do you even need to signal this? :) The problem, AIUI, is not a lack of a MTU-negotiation feature in PPP, but just that limit. So all that needs to be signalled is the removal of that limit, rather than an additional MxU value - if it even needs to be signalled seperately.. Signalling an additional value seems to complicate things to my mind, further it raises questions about exactly what it represents (ie the MxU of which underlying link exactly?) and who should be setting it (the DSLAM, the BAS? What if both want to set it?). regards, -- Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext