From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 9:48:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09DD37B496 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:48:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14l18Q-00004i-00; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:39 -0600 Message-ID: <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:38 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass wrote: > > At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? > > I don't see why it should be that inefficient. Because PPP encapsulation adds a lot of non-information. > In fact, I've been > thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit > faster. Nope, no amount of IP header compression can match the PPP overhead. > I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network > to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that > does that. So does any other tunnel, including a very simple IP in IP tunnel. The problem with such a simple tunnel is that you typically end up splitting most packets into two packets in the tunnel, using your available band- width very poorly. > The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? Sounds like an interesting network configuration. I don't know of a tunnel program like I described above, but it would be pretty simple to develop one using the tun device in FreeBSD. If you don't have FreeBSD at both ends, PPPoE or another tunnelling application probably is your best choice. It would be worth searching for a solution with less overhead than PPPoE. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message