James Carlson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I'd still prefer to treat other encapsulations in the same manner...
>>> assuming that the number of them is small and not expected to grow
>>> much. Right now the only other encapsulation over ethernet that I'm
>>> aware of is RBridges.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There's an awful lot of PPPoE out there due to ADSL...
>>
>> Whether it's meaningful to use expanded frames or not
>> with PPPoE, that's another question...
>>
>
> Even when the frames are expanded, the expansion is properly
> considered part of the payload and not part of the Ethernet headers.
> VLANs and RBridges are different in that respect.
>
> Expanded frames for PPPoE generally requires "traditional" jumbogram
> support.
>
> Oh how I wish PPPoE would just go away. :-<
>
Isn't 802.1x supposed to solve the same problems that PPPoE was invented
for? (Namely the ability to do authentication/authorization of the
right to use the link?)
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
