Pekka Savola writes: > This doc seems to define a PPPoE option 'PPP-Max-Payload'. It talks > of using PPP MRU option. There is no PPP MTU option that I could see. > > My question here is, should there be a PPP MTU option instead of a > PPPoE option? This would be a more generic solution to this part of I don't follow. PPP is symmetric -- there are two MRUs negotiated, one for each direction. Your peer's MRU is your maximum (and default) MTU. How could we need another option for this? Or how could one help? What's really going on here is negotiation about the existence of a usable path. Unfortunately, the underlying protocol itself (other than LLDP) doesn't provide a way to do this. This new mechanism thus doesn't solve the actual problem, but does at least allow consenting peers to identify each other. (In other words, I view it as just a boolean.) > MRU test procedure using MRU-sized Echo-Requests is disabled by > default and to be used for debug purposes only. I'm questioning > whether this is wise. The protocol would be much more robust against I don't think it is. But we did discuss that during the document review. > ==> first off, a major clarification request: RFC1661 does not > mention 'MTU' anywhere, It doesn't need to, I think. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
