Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:01:32 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010405155642.00e5fc30@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <Your message of "Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:38 MDT." <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:38 AM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: >I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was >terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte >IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology >be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other >things to consider as well. For this sort of application (tunneling), PPPoE is a win in most ways. It's got low overhead, isn't hard to administer, is reasonably secure, and doesn't require awkward architectural decisions (e.g. superimposing a subnet with reserved addresses upon your current LAN to do PPP over UDP or TCP). I just wish it would work! I may be able to help hunt down the problem myself, but need to get the link up first. THEN I can roll up my sleeves and start analyzing C code. (I don't much like C, but I can use it if I have to.) --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010405155642.00e5fc30>