[geeks] DSL/PPPoE query - Am I insane?

[Ryn]

I still disagree with the use of ATM with DSL. 5 bytes per cell is a lot
of overhead. Each 1500-byte frame gets run through the ATM AAL 
and adds about 140-bytes of overhead (in addition to IP/TCP/UDP 
overhead). In all my DSL reading I have still not found a definative 
answer as to why most ILECS and CLECS chose ATM as there layer 
2 transport protocol. ATM would prove helpful if you were to packetize 
voice traffic...but they aren't. Anyone have any good whitepapers on
the initial deployment strategies? I have read some on the initial JPC,
but it does not cover why they chose what they did.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Big Endian" <bigendian at mac.com>
To: <geeks at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [geeks] DSL/PPPoE query - Am I insane?


> >On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:42:09AM -0600, Mike Ekholm wrote:
> >>  Are you sure its not PPPoA (which is very common for DSL)?
> >
> >what is PPPoA?  i've never seen that used with DSL.  PPPoE i've seen.  which
> >is just silly.  PPP tunneled over ethernet which is being bridged over ATM.
> 
> PPPoA is ppp over an ATM PVC.  Its just as pointless as PPPoE, and 
> might possibly be less evil... not sure yet.
> 
> daniel
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Fragile. Do not drop." -- Posted on a Boeing 757.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks