North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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 [email protected]
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 protected] did not allow sending a "join",
"request", "subscribe" or other subject to the mailing list directly.
(heavy sigh)

> From: "Chris MacFarlane" <[email protected]>
> 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
> session.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Janosik <[email protected]>
> >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.

[email protected]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32