RE: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's observation.
The reason, I believe, is that since the ISP & ASP are usually different
companies, the ISPs need a way to authenticate users. Since PPP provides
this function, it is used depite the small loss of efficiency due to the PPP
overhead on all subsequent traffic.
Malcolm Herring
Tut Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Fletcher E
Kittredge
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 5:41 AM
To: Roy Bynum
Cc: bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's observation.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:27:42 -0500 Roy Bynum wrote:
> Note, there is not an option between IP and PPP. IP is a layer 3
protocol,
> PPP is a data link protocol for IP that we are replacing with Ethernet.
Roy;
For what it is worth, many Service Providers (SP) seem to have
become enamored with PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) in their current
networks. It sounds like lots of folk plan to run PPPoE over EFM.
Personally, I think PPPoE is a bad design. It makes me
slightly ill to think of the people out there who run PPPoE over
Ethernet over ATM. Yes, there are ADSL SPs who do this. At the next
802.3ah meeting, I was thinking of trying to put together an informal
discussion, some sort of BOF, poster display or "stump the chump"
session where I would be willing to make the statement "anything you
can do with PPPoE I can do better using another properly designed IP
protocol" and defend the statement.
Having said all that, there are many things worse than PPPoE
and I don't think it is a deadly combination to run, just
inefficient and poor design.
So if your statement above is meant to start a vigorous
discussion, count me in and I want to be on your team. If it is meant
as a statement of fact, I think you will find a bunch of SP's who will
not agree.
regards,
fletcher