Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: Weaver on May 12, 2019, 09:04:08 PM
-
Is it illegal to carry on selling hot crossed buns now so late after Easter ? I’d had been eating them for so long this spring that I grew thoroughly addicted and now I miss them.
-
I wondered why I only had two this year . . . :D
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Use_with_DSL_–_PPPoE_over_ATM_(PPPoEoA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol_over_Ethernet#Use_with_DSL_–_PPPoE_over_ATM_(PPPoEoA))
Was it you who did this Weaver? Great job. Are you sure about PPP being 2 bytes. I thought it had 4-8 bytes of overhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol#Structure
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_hGLWTaBk0gC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=ppp+8+byte+overhead&source=bl&ots=EhOatX1MdM&sig=ACfU3U1kho7ZFSJyImRPddv6r9uOXf1cVA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVhun7gpjiAhXfRhUIHRWPBrY4ChDoATAGegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=ppp%208%20byte%20overhead&f=false.
I have written a temporary piece here for my site, but I'm not entirely sure: https://imgur.com/a/fD9Ymxf
The 'here' link https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=lac-wholesale-pppoa-e-l2tp-tunnelling-with-freeradius-2 (https://null.53bits.co.uk/index.php?page=lac-wholesale-pppoa-e-l2tp-tunnelling-with-freeradius-2)
-
Hi Terry, yes, guilty, I wrote that Wikipedia section on overhead, not the whole thing. Some of that later diagram in the Wikipedia page is wrong on the lower rhs and your diagram is correct.
Concerning the overhead of PPP itself, these articles are rather confusing as they describe the maximum framing overhead of PPP as it might be used in dialup. Reading into the small print qualifiers, almost everything can be and always is negotiated out of existence in practice. See the references I gave in that Wikipedia article which do talk about the actual practical amount of PPP’s own overhead.