North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: PPP Question
- From: William Allen Simpson
- Date: Tue Dec 16 15:58:09 1997
Catching up on NANOG after returning from IETF, I found this incongruous
message, and would like to correct the misinformation.
The PPP Maximum Receive Unit is negotiated, but this is a "maximum", not
a "fixed" size. Smaller packets can be sent. While it would be
perfectly legal to fill the remainder of the packet with padding, I know
of no vendor that does it. This would seriously waste bandwidth. The
padding feature is available for old chipsets that require 16-bit and
32-bit output data alignment.
Further questions about PPP should be sent to the firstname.lastname@example.org
mailing list, as designated in RFC1661.... Yes, NANOG is also hosted by
Merit, but the lists have different purposes. Really.
As usual, joining a list requires a message to <list>-request. I was
amazed at the number of messages arising from nanog list members
complaining that email@example.com did not allow sending a "join",
"request", "subscribe" or other subject to the mailing list directly.
> From: "Chris MacFarlane" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> More to the point is that the frame size is negotiated while handshaking.
> Once two devices agree on the size it is fixed for the duration of the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Janosik <email@example.com>
> >Is a PPP frame size static or elastic? RFC 1661 states:
> >But, it also says the the Information field "MAY" be padded up to the MRU.
> >I have hard time believing that a PPP frame would be static.
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32