Veera Tubati (vtubati) writes: > That can be done but then that means for PPPoE sessions to go beyond > 1492 BRAS always have to incur this cost of verification; "Cost?" We're talking about a single MTU-sized packet transmitted and one received on an Ethernet link. Why is that a cost worth optimizing -- especially at the risk of losing correctness? > as BRAS may > not be able to turn off that verification selectively either as it > wouldn't be certain which clients really are asking for 1500 MRU (due to > underlying network really supporting it) or which are asking 1500 MRU > due to their config/implementation being broken. Seems fixing these > broken clients would be a much overhead for Service provider. Right, I think that may well be one of the concerns: existing old implementations that use an incorrect MTU would end up causing the peer to probe and time out. I think it'd still be possible to do something reasonable here without the extra flag, but it's probably not worth the effort. However, that doesn't mean that turning off the check for new implementations with this new feature is a good idea. I think it's a hazard and I see no benefit. -- 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