Michael Sokolov wrote: > That is why I hate Ethernet with a passion. Ethernet should be for LANs > only; using Ethernet for WANs and PTP links is the vilest invention in > the entire history of data networking in my opinion. >
Ah, but who's to say that all PTP links are WANs? Are you really going to run an OC-48 from one router to another _in the same building_ when you need 1Gb/s between them? Have you looked at how much more that would cost? Ethernet interfaces, particularly copper, are dirt cheap. Even for MANs or WANs, the price of a pipe (plus equipment at each end) will still often be significantly lower for Ethernet than for "real" circuits--especially if you don't plan on using all the bandwidth all of the time. > My medium of choice for PTP links (WAN) is HDLC over a synchronous > serial bit stream, with a V.35 or EIA-530 interface between the router > and the modem/DSU. Over HDLC I then run either RFC 1490 routed mode or > straight PPP (RFC 1662); in the past I used Cisco HDLC (0F 00 08 00 IP > header follows...). My 4.3BSD router (or I should better say gateway as > that's the proper 80s/90s term) then sees a PTP interface which has no > netmask at all, hence the near and far end IP addresses don't have to > have any numerical relationship between them at all. No netmask, no MAC > addresses, no ARP, none of that crap, just a PTP IP link. > Well, it'd certainly be nice if someone would make something even cheaper than Ethernet for that purpose (which would squeeze out a few more bits of payload), but so far nobody has. It's hard to beat Ethernet on volume, and that's the main determinant of cost/price... S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
