> Cc: townsley@xxxxxxxxx, margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pppext@xxxxxxxx,
> bberry@xxxxxxxxx, hholgate@xxxxxxxxx
> From: Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> AFAIK, it isn't. It is using the Ethernet as a local interface
> between a router and an interface device that has a number of special
> characteristics and is implemented in a separate chassis. Call it
> "system engineering" if you like. The actual protocol over the
> airwaves is PPP as known and loved, far more compact than PPPOE.
> PPPOE is simply used to manage the local interface between the router
> and the radio interface.
Ok, so why not assign IP addresses (perhaps by RFC 1918) to those
those boxes with radios and PPPoE links to access controllers?
If this particular use of PPPoE as an inter-network protocol makes
sense, where does does using PPPoE as a replacement for IP not make
sense?
If PPPoE is not going over the radio waves, why are the access controllers
distinct boxes from the boxes ("radio interfaces"?) that connect PPPoE
to the real ether?
I suspect they are distinct boxes from the mention of the use of PPPoE
as a (de)multiplexing tool, which gets back to the evil of using PPPoE
as an inter-network protocol instead of IP.
Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
|
