PPP over Ethernet?
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it? --Zachary
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus. .pm
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting... Dirk On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus.
.pm
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead.
could you explain how ppp encapsulating (etherh+payload) reduces the overhead?
Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
buy a 100mb ether card.
On Thu, Jun 04, 1998 at 01:55:56AM -0400, Bradley Reynolds wrote:
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead.
could you explain how ppp encapsulating (etherh+payload) reduces the overhead?
Who says you need the etherheader? Its not ethernet, its a point to point connection in this setup.
Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
buy a 100mb ether card.
Of course one would do this with 100mb ether cards. Dirk
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 dirk@power.net wrote:
could you explain how ppp encapsulating (etherh+payload) reduces the overhead?
Who says you need the etherheader? Its not ethernet, its a point to point connection in this setup.
If you are using ethernet cards to talk to each other, it _is_ ethernet. The bits will be placed on the wire, the framing, CSMA/CD algorithm etc, will all be done in accordance with the 802.3 spec. The physical wire will be carrying the bits in 802.3 format, including the preamble, starting frame delimiter, MAC destination addrress and MAC source address, since the cards don't know how to use any other method of framing and sending the data. -vijay
I can think of applications where bonding wireless interfaces could be useful.. -g
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead.
could you explain how ppp encapsulating (etherh+payload) reduces the overhead?
Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
buy a 100mb ether card.
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
Wouldn't this be a way to tunnel IP in IP over ethernet? -- James D. Wilson netsurf@sersol.com "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)
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. At 10:05 PM 6/3/98 -0700, dirk@power.net wrote:
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
Dirk
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus.
.pm
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
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
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.
SSH does not allow me to access file on the corporate NT server. PPTP (ala MS VPN) does.
At 10:05 PM 6/3/98 -0700, dirk@power.net wrote:
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
Dirk
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus.
.pm
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
-- Dave Siegel (520)572-9041 (work) Sr. Network Engineer (520)990-4883 (mobile) Frontier Globalcenter http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ dsiegel@globacenter.net dave@siegelie.com
Cygnus has tools that let you build SHH on WinNT. At 10:14 AM 6/4/98 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote:
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.
SSH does not allow me to access file on the corporate NT server.
PPTP (ala MS VPN) does.
At 10:05 PM 6/3/98 -0700, dirk@power.net wrote:
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
Dirk
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus.
.pm
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
-- Dave Siegel (520)572-9041 (work) Sr. Network Engineer (520)990-4883 (mobile) Frontier Globalcenter http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ dsiegel@globacenter.net dave@siegelie.com
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
Try a combination of SSH and Samba. At 10:14 AM 6/4/98 -0700, Dave Siegel wrote:
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.
SSH does not allow me to access file on the corporate NT server.
PPTP (ala MS VPN) does.
At 10:05 PM 6/3/98 -0700, dirk@power.net wrote:
I guess the poster wants to connect two ethernet cards directly to each other using a crossover cable. This could save the ethernet overhead. Plus it would probably make for easier bonding of multiple paralell links. Could be interesting...
Dirk
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Zachary DeAquila writes:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
The idea sounds highly bogus. PPP is a way of adding packetization and content types to a serial link. Ethernet has both already. Besides, PPP is a point to point thing, an ethernet is a bus.
.pm
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
-- Dave Siegel (520)572-9041 (work) Sr. Network Engineer (520)990-4883 (mobile) Frontier Globalcenter http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ dsiegel@globacenter.net dave@siegelie.com
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
There have been other replies already, but I thought I would start afresh. PPP is meant for point to point (serial) links, and is "optimised" (I am being generous) for those links. There is no reason that you should not be able to run PPP or even SLIP between two endpoints over Ethernet - it is just that very few people do it. A number of vendors support PPP on a TCP port so that you can transparently forward a modem session over a network to a terminal server. Personal experience shows that the Ascend MAX4000 does this well. Otherwise, it depends what you want to do. If you want to move PDUs across an IP network in a transparent fashion, you have L2TP (IETF), L2F (Cisco), PPTP (M$/Ascend) or ATMP (Ascend) for VPN solutions. IPSec might work - havn't read the vpn.8 manual page on OpenBSD recently, but last time I tried I did not have enough experience or information to make it work. Let me know the application in private (or public - I don't mind but readers of NANOG might) e-mail and I will cogitate. Peter
PPP/Ethernet protocol work is proceeding in some standards group or another; sorry I cannot name which, I can't seem to find any drafts in ietf world (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pppext-charter.html) Most of the general gist of PPP / Ethernet is to provide a cogent method of aggregating ethernet devices over DSL. For example, you may want to have a DSL router that gateways a common LAN to a DSL line. This DSL line goes into an L2 cloud; ie atm. This atm cloud has routers which aggregate DSL subscribers. So, you end up w/ something like this: (------------ip-------------------) (-------------ppp-----------------) many users <--dsl--><--atm-->router This allows you a unicast pipe between one ethernet mac-address and a management point on the router, like a PVC or subinterface. This is deemed useful for ADSL customer aggregation over many heterogeneous environments, ie, bridged ethernet, etc. Among other vendors, Redback Networks is doing some keen work in this ara. -a Thus spake Zachary DeAquila (zachary@zachs.place.org) on or about Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 05:59:07PM -0500:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
--Zachary
This is an alternative to the use of L2TP being tossed about in the ADSL Forum (www.adslforum.com). ...Scott
It's actually http://www.adsl.com/adsl_forum.com On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Scott Brim wrote:
This is an alternative to the use of L2TP being tossed about in the ADSL Forum (www.adslforum.com).
...Scott
-- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:59:07 -0500 Zachary DeAquila <zachary@zachs.place.org> wrote:
Anyone ever heard anything about PPP over Ethernet? Is there an encapsulation standard for it?
--Zachary
I've heard of SLIP over ethernet [etherslip?] and PPP over telnet, the later used to be cool for remote access to PPP providers... mmm ka9q Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD-1.3 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (15)
-
Alan Hannan -
Bradley Reynolds -
Dave Siegel -
dirk＠power.net -
Greg Simpson -
Neil J. McRae -
NetSurfer -
Perry E. Metzger -
Peter Galbavy -
Phillip Vandry -
Rich Sena -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Scott Brim -
Vijay Gill -
Zachary DeAquila