RE: Re: Last Call: 'Accommodating an MTU/MRUgreaterthan1492in PPPoE' to Informational RFC
Pekka Savola <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext,gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Jerome Moisand wrote: > Adding an unnecessary round-trip (hence adding latency & burden) is > definitely a protocol issue, not an implementation issue. > > I really have troubles to understand why a default setting should not be > tuned with the main use cases as known at the time of writing. AFAIK, we're breaking IEEE Ethernet specifications by using jumbo frames (or, at the very least, using an unspecified features). To me, that should imply it might be wise to err to the side of caution. Note: it might be possible to do away with an extra roundtrip if that's issue, by adding some padding to the PPP/PPPoE messages themselves, instead of using separate PPP echo req/response. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext