[Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt

Elwyn Davies writes:
> >PPPoE and PPP are independent protocols.  PPP tunnels over PPPoE.
> >  
> >
> That's fine and dandy but I think the problem is that as drafted, some 
> of the PPP packets would not have any credit tag on them so you have to 
> distinguish between the ones with a credit tag plus a PPP packet and 
> those that just have a PPP packet. A strange form of tunnel!

I don't see that in the draft.  They do make a distinction between
PPPoE control and data messages -- control messages don't contain
embedded PPP data and don't employ the credit scheme, and data
messages *do* carry the PPP data and do use credits.  I see no
opportunity here for a problem.

I suspect you're referring to the ability to piggyback credit grants
atop PPPoE data messages.  That's not a problem because even messages
without grants consume credit space and are thus metered.

As best I can tell, it works.

(Even if it didn't work, I wouldn't be too worked up about it.  It's
"only" PPPoE ... and likely only affects this one vendor's recommended
baroque deployment.)

> >It's not exactly "Emporer's New Clothes."
> >  
> >
> There certainly appear to be a few rents leaving the naughty bits 
> showing ;-)

Hardly the biggest ones.  PPPoE itself has holes fit for a truck --
including security (none), MTU (non-standard), and session ID
assignment (unidirectional).  It's a tough neighborhood.

> I think we know where we stand on this one and we don't need to expend 
> any more cycles on it.  Let's see what happens...

OK; sounds good.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
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

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art