🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11261@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:
   But a very major drawback to PPP is the use of multiple
   encapsulations for the various network protocols which will
   essentially break the path selection functionality of multi-media
   bridge routers.

For true believers of the pure Router faith, that's not a problem.

   SLITHERNET which is currently supported (along with PPP) by
   Clearpoint, DuPont, Datability and bridge routers from other
   vendors in the near future

I'll look for the SLITHERNET Demo Center at Interop.  (I doubt it will
be as crowded as PPP's :-)

   is a better alternative for moderate to high-speed WAN
   interconnectivity.

Yes, for those users who want to use SLITHERNET.  We've all been round
and round about this many times before, and I doubt we'll cover any
new ground here.

   ... corporations really need to build ... from point to point, X.25
   and FR links.  PPP unlike the SLITHERNET formalism will fail
   miserably for this purpose.

That's why they should use RFC-1356 or RFC-877 encapsulation over
X.25, and RFC-1294 over Frame Relay, rather than RFC-1331 PPP.  The
IETF has blessed different encapsulations for different media.  A user
should also be cautioned not to use a drill press where {s}he really
needs a putty knife.

   Buying bridges, routers and bridge routers which only support PPP
   could lock the purchaser into an inferior form of wide area
   networking.

That sounds like a piece of IBM marketing literature I recently heard
about: "Don't let yourself be locked into open systems!"