Jerome Moisand writes:
All broadband carriers I know of have very clear plans to use Ethernet
aggregation gear and Ethernet interfaces on both DSLAM and BRAS which
are enabled for jumbo-frames. All corresponding equipment vendors I know
do support such feature.
If there's just one customer-owned non-jumbo bridge in the way (e.g.,
an 802.11 AP), then your whole day is shot.
So this isn't a fairly arbitrary topology like could be found in an
enterprise environment or a campus environment. It is a very controlled
environment with strict deployment rules.
That's the part that seems really inappropriate for any sort of
document published via the IETF. History tells us that we have very
little ability to predict the future -- and essentially none at all
when it comes to the distant future.
Designing a protocol that works only in one particular deployment
scenario but falls on its face elsewhere seems tragically short-
sighted to me. (Perhaps it's ultimately a good thing overall, if it
just causes customers to abandon vendors using solutions that fail.
But getting there is tough and unnecessarily hazardous.)
Based on that, enabling such verification by default (with the
additional roundtrip implied) is just a completely unnecessary burden,
and when you have to deal with 20K or 40K PPPoE sessions, including
major peaks when a GE link is restored after failure, this is rather
impactful.
That's still an implementation issue, not a protocol issue. If you
can't handle the load (a decent design should, as this is by far the
least of the duties it might face), then spread it out.
--
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