RE: Re: Last Call: 'Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater than1492 in PPPoE' to Informational RFC
James Carlson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext,gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Veera Tubati (vtubati) writes: > > I don't quite understand, but it sounds to me like a design issue for > > the BRAS and not a protocol issue. If it wants, that machine could > > sequence the link bring-up so that it spreads out the load, or it > > could just use a more capable hardware platform. > > It is clear that is not an issue with the protocol, but seems there are > practical reasons which pushed for the birth of this draft. That seems unrelated to the potential performance issue I thought we were discussing. In any event, the draft authors wanted explicit signaling because of the behavior of the existing PPPoE implementations. There's little way to be _sure_ you're talking to a new one without checking. (I think a boolean would be sufficient for that, but I see no problem with having an integer value instead.) -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext