nanog mailing list archives
Re: PPP over Ethernet?
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry () Mlink NET>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
Nah, They never heard of virtual circuits. Seriously, PPP over IP is a way of building a cheap VPN. The thing is that SSH already does that job much better.
The SSH FAQ or docs or whatever mentions that there is a big problem with this type of tunelling: If TCP traffic goes through the tunnel and congestion is encountered, both the TCP traffic being tunelled and the tunnel itself (which is a TCP connection) will retransmit, causing, at the very least, a waste of bandwidth. Maybe other kinds of havoc could result from this? That is why I thought protocols like GRE which encapsulate one packet in one packet were much better. -Phil
Current thread:
- PPP over Ethernet? Zachary DeAquila (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Perry E. Metzger (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? dirk (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Bradley Reynolds (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? dirk (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Vijay Gill (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Greg Simpson (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? dirk (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? NetSurfer (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Roeland M.J. Meyer (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Phillip Vandry (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Dave Siegel (Jun 05)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Roeland M.J. Meyer (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Roeland M.J. Meyer (Jun 05)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Perry E. Metzger (Jun 03)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Scott Brim (Jun 04)
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Rich Sena (Jun 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Bill Woodcock (Jun 04)
- Message not available
- Re: PPP over Ethernet? Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 04)
- Message not available