ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Pppext] Re: Last Call: 'Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater than1492 in PPPoE' to Informational RFC

2006-02-21 13:37:32
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                    
<james(_dot_)d(_dot_)carlson(_at_)sun(_dot_)com>
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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf