From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 23:52:27 GMT-3
You CAN run PPPoE as well, at that point, you're extending the PPP session
out to the CPE device, not just the DSL modem. So it just depends on where
you are running the code at. Some providers to PPPoA (transparent to users)
others use PPPoE clients that the user must configure.
Either way, they're doing something to separate traffic a bit more than
previously done. PPPoE can also be run in cable modem space (some MSOs
are).
The MTU is based on whatever you're transiting, minus some extra overhead.
In PPPoA, why would you care what the MTU is there? You're still attaching
to the network with your computer on an ethernet segment, so you'll still be
in a 1500 byte world for the most part.
But there's lots of different implementations depending on what boxes you're
using and how bright the engineers happen to be! And user support as
well...
One o' them things...
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
JNCIP, et al.
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
http://www.ipexpert.net
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
robbie
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:30 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Question on ATM...
As an aside, I recently had a top 5 firewall vendor tell one of me and one
of my co-workers that all DSL is PPPoE, including but not limited to HDSL,
SDSL, ADSL, etc. Considering that my employer is an ISP offering DSL, and
using PPPoA and not PPPoE, I had quite a laugh at his expense.
From what I understood, PPPoA allows one to use use a larger MTU (4352) all
the way to the CPE device, instead of 1500 to the CPE device and
1492 for any devices behind said CPE device. There are more reasons that
seem to elude me at the moment - can anyone else expound on this?
Robbie
Joe Chang wrote:
> Oh, right. DSL lines get aggregated onto ATM switches. Didn't think of
that.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MADMAN" <dmadlan@qwest.com>
> To: "Joe Chang" <changjoe@earthlink.net>
> Cc: "Cert" <cert77@hotmail.com>; "Yasser Aly"
> <yasser.aly@noorgroup.net>; "'Kenneth Wygand'"
> <KWygand@customonline.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Question on ATM...
>
>
>
>>Joe Chang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's a lot of interest on PPP over ATM here. My understanding is
>>>that
>
> it
>
>>>is for ISPs who want to offer ATM all the way up to the SOHO. PPP
>
> provides
>
>>>the authentication and privacy that ATM does not. However, has anyone
>
> ever
>
>>>heard of ATM actually being offered to residential users?
>>
>> Yes, DSL!!!!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Cert" <cert77@hotmail.com>
>>>To: "Yasser Aly" <yasser.aly@noorgroup.net>; "'Kenneth Wygand'"
>>><KWygand@customonline.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:49 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Question on ATM...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Yasser,
>>>>I am sure that I am wrong here but thought that if I use
>>>>ciscosnapppp
>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>>not use inverarp at all..pls.correct me because I am very poor in
>>>>understanding in ATM.
>>>>Keeping lab in mind what are the key points I need to remember so
>>>>that
>
> it
>
>>>>would help me to decide when to use what type of config.
>>>>
>>>>Pls. advise..
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Cert.
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Yasser Aly" <yasser.aly@noorgroup.net>
>>>>To: "'Kenneth Wygand'" <KWygand@customonline.com>; "'Cert'"
>>>><cert77@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:42 AM
>>>>Subject: RE: Question on ATM...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be the advantages of using ciscosnappp as encapsulation
>>>
>>>type
>>>
>>>
>>>>>over other encapsulation methods?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
>>>>>Behalf Of Kenneth Wygand
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:34 PM
>>>>>To: Cert; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>>>Subject: RE: Question on ATM...
>>>>>
>>>>>Cert,
>>>>>
>>>>>I, too, feel there is a severe lack of resources available on this
>>>
>>>topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>anyone has any "ATM notes", etc, that applies to possible ATM
>>>
>>>connectivity
>>>
>>>
>>>>>topics on the lab exam, I would certainly appreciate the information.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>Kenneth E. Wygand
>>>>>Systems Engineer, Project Services
>>>>>CISSP #37102, CCNP, CCDP, ACSP, Cisco IPT Design Specialist, MCP,
>>>>>CNA,
>>>>>Network+, A+
>>>>>Custom Computer Specialists, Inc.
>>>>>"The only unattainable goal is the one not attempted."
>>>>>-Anonymous
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
>>>>>Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>Cert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:24 PM
>>>>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>>>Subject: Question on ATM...
>>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>I am having some confusion on when to use virtual template in ATM
>>>>>configuration & in the test if they ask not to use inverse arp then
>>>>>is
>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>
>>>>>safe to use virtual template with ciscosnapppp (I don't recall the
>
> exact
>
>>>>>keyword) encapsulation ? or configuring static map, which will
>>>>>inturn disable the inverse arp by default would be suitable here..
>>>>> Please advise..
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Cert.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:49 GMT-3