🚀 go-pugleaf

"Christopher Jones" <c2jones@bellsouth.net> writes:
> 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.

Implementation and protocol design are not the same thing.  It's
certainly possible to do competent implementations of lousy protocols
as well as incompetent implementations of better protocols.

I was commenting only on the design of PPPoE itself, not any
particular implementation.

> 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?

As above, I wasn't commenting on any particular implementation.  The
design of PPPoE is bad in many respects.  That doesn't mean that
replacing bug-ridden PPPoA servers with better-built PPPoE servers
wouldn't be a net gain for the average user.

-- 
James Carlson, Internet Engineering       <james.d.carlson@east.sun.com>
SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
Second Edition now available - http://people.ne.mediaone.net/carlson/ppp