I coupled the router-discovery piece with this idea because I imagined we would limit the traffic to router-to-router traffic, and not allow hosts on the ethernet segment to talk directly to the remote PPP device. So we could abandon that altogether and allow any host to talk to the remote PPP device directly, especially if we use the LSB in the address field in an HDLC-like way to allow for 8 or 16 bit address field length.
And I guess if we go a step further, we could also effectively create mappings for any PPP link associated with the ethernet segment, so we would also effectively bridge two or more PPP links this way.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>
To: pppext at ietf.org
Cc: Derick Winkworth <ccie15672 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:21:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Int-area] PPP-to-ethernet
Taking
this
to
the
pppext
mailing
list.
-
Mark
Derick
Winkworth
wrote:
>
>
All:
>
>
>
>
Mulitple
router
vendors
have
a
feature
in
which
you
can
essentially
>
"bridge"
a
PPP
link
to
an
ethernet
link.
Cisco
calls
this
feature
>
"local-switching."
Juniper
calls
it
"translational
cross-connects."
>
>
>
>
I
find
that
both
of
these
vendors
implementations
have
their
>
shortcomings,
and
I
think
there
could
be
some
benefit
to
creating
a
>
standard
for
accomplishing
this.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
standard
for
>
doing
this.
>
>
>
>
My
thought
was
essentially
using
the
address
field
as
defined
in
RFC
>
1662.
Differing
addresses
in
this
field
would
be
used
by
the
>
translating
router
to
forward
traffic
to
differing
neighboring
routers
>
on
the
ethernet
segment.
So
there
would
effectively
be
a
>
PPP-address-TO-Ethernet-MAC
table.
Neighboring
routers
would
be
>
discovered
via
IGMP
or
IRDP
(as
Cisco
kind
of
does
it
today,
but
"not
>
really")
on
the
ethernet
segment.
Routers
responding
would
have
PPP
>
addresses
created
for
them
in
a
state-table,
which
is
link-scoped.
So
>
there
would
be
a
different
table
for
every
PPP
link.
>
>
>
>
At
the
IP
layer,
the
remote-end
PPP
device
would
obviously
have
an
>
address
that
is
native
to
the
IP
subnet
of
the
ethernet
link.
>
>
Anyway,
anyone
have
any
thoughts
on
this?
>
>
>
>
Derick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Looking
for
last
minute
shopping
deals?
Find
them
fast
with
Yahoo!
>
Search.
>
<
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Int-area
mailing
list
>
Int-area at ietf.org>
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
