Jerome Moisand writes: > All broadband carriers I know of have very clear plans to use Ethernet > aggregation gear and Ethernet interfaces on both DSLAM and BRAS which > are enabled for jumbo-frames. All corresponding equipment vendors I know > do support such feature. If there's just one customer-owned non-jumbo bridge in the way (e.g., an 802.11 AP), then your whole day is shot. > So this isn't a fairly arbitrary topology like could be found in an > enterprise environment or a campus environment. It is a very controlled > environment with strict deployment rules. That's the part that seems really inappropriate for any sort of document published via the IETF. History tells us that we have very little ability to predict the future -- and essentially none at all when it comes to the distant future. Designing a protocol that works only in one particular deployment scenario but falls on its face elsewhere seems tragically short- sighted to me. (Perhaps it's ultimately a good thing overall, if it just causes customers to abandon vendors using solutions that fail. But getting there is tough and unnecessarily hazardous.) > Based on that, enabling such verification by default (with the > additional roundtrip implied) is just a completely unnecessary burden, > and when you have to deal with 20K or 40K PPPoE sessions, including > major peaks when a GE link is restored after failure, this is rather > impactful. That's still an implementation issue, not a protocol issue. If you can't handle the load (a decent design should, as this is by far the least of the duties it might face), then spread it out. -- 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