So then PPPoE will not help stop a virus on a single machine from taking down an access point? Can anyone confirm, as there are opinions both ways?
Thanks, Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Gaarden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [smartBridges] sB Network Issue > Roger Howard wrote: > >>The only way you can make sure that an infected client can't wreak havoc > >>on the AP is to have bwctrl on the CPE. > >> > > > > This is what I was saying... but Colin Watson says that PPPoE encapsulates > > everything including ping packets into PPP which does have flow control?? Is > > this right? > > PPP over serial lines does have flow control (RTS/CTS and XON/XOFF). > > RTS/CTS can't be used with PPPoE because it uses the RTS/CTS wires on the > serial port (out-of-band signalling). > > XON/XOFF is in-band, but requires escape codes to insure that payload data > is not incorrectly interpreted as XON/XOFF. In order to use escape codes, > the PPP peers must negotiate an Async-Control-Character-Map (ACCM) during > the LCP phase. The PPPoE RFC states that: > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2516.html > "7. LCP Considerations > [...] An implementation MUST NOT request any of the following options, > and MUST reject a request for such an option: > [...] > Asynchronous-Control-Character-Map (ACCM)" > > So neither RTS/CTS nor XON/XOFF can be used for PPPoE flow control. > > -- > LarsG > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
