🚀 go-pugleaf

"James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote in message
news:xoav8znc3q4u.fsf@sun.com...

<snip>

> More subtly, PPPoE also breaks the
> RFC 1661 default MTU.

> What's worse, PPPoE's session ID assignment mechanism is badly
> designed.  It assigns a single ID from the 'server' side only.
> Properly designed tunneling protocols assign IDs from both sides; that
> is, the client issues an ID number to the server for data inbound to
> the client, and the server issues a separate ID number to the client
> for data outbound from the client. Because PPPoE doesn't do this, an
> individual system that has multiple PPPoE client sessions running has
> no guarantee that the assigned ID numbers don't conflict, and thus
> must demultiplex on both the ID number and the MAC address of the
> server.

Most interesting. Allow me to take note of these details. I am going to have
to pick up a copy of your book for my own added knowledge. You certainly
appear well qualified on these matters. Thank you for the info. It is
well-appreciated.

What troubles me though, is with all the misgivings I hear (there have been
plenty abroad, TechTV included) about the PPPoE configuration as less
stable, etc. than the other packages and yet, for my own personal situation,
the PPPoE switch (from my former PPPoA) has been a real gem of a fix for the
simply woefully unreliable service situations I had in the past compared to
the virtually perfect service I have now.

Moreover, it was in fact the upper management rankings of BSFA (Bellsouth
Fast Access) that confidently prescribed my switch with assurance that this
would remedy my connections woes; my, how they were right! They all had
attached details as to what was the likely problem and as to just how this
would be the proper fix, at least per my given, specific area. [Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.]

Any idea as to why the infamous PPPoE configuration has proved for some
anyway, as the lifesaver for certain areas? Perhaps your book outlines this?
Again, I'll have to gather up your publication per my own detailed
understanding here. Now, yes, I am certainly satisfied with my highly
dependable service I enjoy, yet, with my compassion for others here that are
not so fortunate, I would greatly like to advance my knowledge of this facet
toward learning just how my switch played such a roll and how I might assist
those others in my specific area, respectfully.

Once again, thanks for the insight.

Genuinely,

Christopher Jones