Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1 Original rationale
In late 1998 the DSL service model had a chickenand-egg problem. ADSL technology had been proposed a decade earlier.[8] Potential equipment vendors
and carriers alike recognized that broadband such as cable
modem or DSL would eventually replace dialup service,
but the hardware (both customer premises and LEC)
faced a signicant low-quantity cost barrier. Initial estimates for low-quantity deployment of DSL showed costs
in the $300$500 range for a DSL modem and $300/mo
access fee from the telco which was well beyond what
a home user would pay. Thus the initial focus was on
small & home business customers for whom a T1 line (at
the time $800$1500 per month) was not economical,
but who needed more than dialup or ISDN could deliver.
On the customer-premises equipment, PPPoE may be
If enough of these customers paved the way, quantities
implemented either in a unied residential gateway dewould drive the prices down to where the home-use divice that handles both DSL modem and IP routing funcalup user might be interested: more like $50 for the motions or in the case of a simple DSL modem (without
dem and $50/mo for the access.
routing support), PPPoE may be handled behind it on a
separate Ethernet-only router or even directly on a users
computer. (Support for PPPoE is present in most operat- 1.1 Dierent usage prole
ing systems, ranging from Windows XP,[3] GNU/Linux[4]
to Mac OS X.[5] ) More recently, some GPON-based (in- The problem was that small business customers had a difstead of DSL-based) residential gateways also use PP- ferent usage prole than a home-use dialup user, includPoE, although the status of PPPoE in the GPON stan- ing
dards is marginal.
in this case, the PPPoE-over-DSL side of things is lightweight enough that it wouldn't impinge on the hopedoccasionally referred to as PPPoEoA, for PPPoE for home usage market when it nally arrived. While sucover ATM.)
cess on the second matter may be debated (some complain that 8 bytes per packet is too much) PPPoE clearly
or when a PPPoE-speaking DSL modem is con- succeeded in bringing sucient volume to drive the price
nected to a PPPoE-speaking Ethernet-only router for service down to what a home user would pay. It reusing an Ethernet cable. For such two-box systems, mains the dominant DSL connectivity mechanism as of
DSL modem plus Ethernet-only router, PPPoE is 2011, more than a decade later.
now the preferred solution.
1.2
PPPoE hoped to merge the widespread Ethernet infrastructure with the ubiquitous PPP, allowing vendors on
both sides of the connection to heavily leverage their existing software and deliver products in the very near term.
Essentially all operating systems at the time had a PPP
stack, and the design of PPPoE allowed for a simple shim
at the line-encoding stage to convert from PPP to PPPoE.
1.2.2
2 PPPoE stages
The PPPoE has two distinct stages:
1.3
Success
PPPoE was initially designed to provide a small LAN 3.1 Client to server: Initiation (PADI)
with individual independent connections to the internet
at large, but also such that the protocol itself would be PADI stands for PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation.[10]
3.4
3
packet from the DSL-AC. It conrms acceptance of the
oer of a PPPoE connection made by the DSL-AC issuing the PADO packet.
3.2
3.3
4 Protocol overhead
PPPoE has the highest overhead DSL delivery
method.[15]
On ATM/DSL (aka PPPoEoA): The amount of overhead added by PPPoEoA on the DSL side of things depends on the packet size because of (i) the absorbing effect of ATM cell-padding which completely cancels out
overheads of PPPoEoA in some cases, (ii) the PPPoE
overhead can cause an entire additional 53 byte ATM
cell to be required, and (iii) IP fragmentation can be induced (which also invokes the rst two eects).[16] However ignoring ATM and IP fragmentation for the moment,
the basic additional protocol header overheads for AAL5
payload are typically: 2 bytes (for PPP) + 6 (for PPPoE) + 18 (Ethernet framing, variable) + 10 (RFC 2684,
variable) = 36 bytes. For very small packets this overhead is even greater because of Ethernet frame padding.
However more realistically, the typical DSL/ATM overhead is either zero or 53 bytes as in case (ii) where the
ATM cell payload maximum of 48 bytes is exceeded, so
requiring an additional 53 byte cell. The 36 byte gure
deduced earlier can be slightly reduced by various means:
discarding Ethernet FCS loses another 4 bytes, for example, bringing the total down to 32. Compare this with
a vastly more header-ecient protocol, PPPoA, with a
xed 10 byte overhead inside the AAL5 payload (i.e. on
the DSL side).
4.1
MTU/MRU
When the DSL modem sends and receives PPPoEcontaining Ethernet frames across the Ethernet link to the
router (or PPPoE-speaking single PC), there is an overhead of 8 bytes (2 for PPP, 6 for PPPoE) added within
the payload of the Ethernet frame. This added overhead
usually means that a reduced limit (so-called MTU or
MRU) of 1492 bytes is imposed on the length of IP packets sent or received, as opposed to the usual 1500 bytes
for Ethernet networks. Some devices support RFC 4638,
which allows a 1508 byte l Ethernet frame, sometimes
called baby jumbo frames, thus allowing a full 1500 byte
payload to be transported over a PPPoE session. This is
advantageous because of the many companies who (incorrectly) block all ICMP trac from exiting their network. This stops Path MTU discovery from working correctly and can cause problems for people accessing these
networks with a MRU of less than 1500 bytes.
How PPPoE ts in the DSL Internet access architecture
The transport protocol used on the telephone network is
ATM. The DSL modem encapsulates PPP packets inside
ATM cells and sends them over the WAN. There are several encapsulation methods.
4.2
PPPoE to PPPoA
5 Quirks
Since the point to point connection established has a
MTU lower than that of standard Ethernet (typically 1492
vs Ethernets 1500), it can sometimes cause problems
when Path MTU Discovery is defeated by poorly congured rewalls. Although higher MTUs are becoming more common in providers networks, usually the
workaround is to use TCP MSS (Maximum Segment
Size) clamping or rewrite, whereby the access concentrator rewrites the MSS to ensure TCP peers send
smaller datagrams. Although TCP MSS clamping solves
the MTU issue for TCP, other protocols such as ICMP
and UDP may still be aected.
RFC 4638 allows PPPoE devices to negotiate an MTU
of greater than 1492 if the underlying Ethernet layer is
capable of jumbo frames.
Some vendors (Cisco[17] and Juniper, for example) distinguish PPPoE[oA] from PPPoEoE (PPPoE over Ethernet), which is PPPoE running directly over Ethernet or
other IEEE 802 networks or over Ethernet bridged over
ATM, in order to distinguish it from PPPoEoA (PPPoE
over ATM), which is PPPoE running over an ATM virtual circuit using RFC 2684 and SNAP encapsulation of
PPPoE. (PPPoEoA is not the same as Point-to-Point Protocol over ATM (PPPoA), which doesn't use SNAP).
According to a Cisco document PPPoEoE is a variant of PPPoE where the Layer 2 transport protocol is
now Ethernet or 802.1q VLAN instead of ATM. This
encapsulation method is generally found in Metro Ethernet or Ethernet digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) environments. The common deployment model is that this encapsulation method is typically
found in multi-tenant buildings or hotels. By delivering Ethernet to the subscriber, the available bandwidth
is much more abundant and the ease of further service
delivery is increased.[17]
PPPoE over GPON is reportedly used by retail service providers such as Internode of Australias National
Broadband Network,[20] Romanias RCS & RDS (for
their Fiberlink customers GPON is sold as Ethernet ports in MDUs)., Orange France[21] and Philippines Globe Telecom.[22] Verizon's FIOS product has
5
uses DHCP in some states and PPPoE in others.[23]
RFC 6934 Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks, which argues for the use of Access Node Control Protocol
in PONs foramong other thingsauthenticating subscriber access and managing their IP addresses, and the
rst author of which is a Verizon employee, excludes PPPoE as an acceptable encapsulation for GPON: The protocol encapsulation on BPON is based on multi-protocol
encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5 (AAL5),
dened in [RFC2684]. This covers PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE, dened in [RFC2516]) or IP over Ethernet
(IPoE). The protocol encapsulation on GPON is always
IPoE.[24]
8 References
[1] James Boney (2005). Cisco IOS in a Nutshell. O'Reilly
Media, Inc. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-596-55311-1.
[2] Philip Golden; Herv Dedieu; Krista S. Jacobsen (2007).
Implementation and Applications of DSL Technology.
Taylor & Francis. p. 479. ISBN 978-1-4200-1307-8.
[3] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283070
[4] http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/DSL-HOWTO/
configure.html
[5] http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2301
[6] Wind River Systems Acquires RouterWare, Inc.. Findarticles.com (1999-07-05). Retrieved on 2011-09-27.
[7] Michael Beck (2005). Ethernet in the First Mile : The IEEE
802.3ah EFM Standard. McGraw Hill Professional. p.
27. ISBN 978-0-07-146991-3.
[8] Richard D. Gitlin, Sailesh K. Rao, Jean-Jacques Werner,
Nicholas Zervos (May 8, 1990). Method and apparatus for wideband transmission of digital signals between,
for example, a telephone central oce and customer
premises. US Patent 4,924,492.
[9] TouchWave Partners With Telogy Networks For VoIP
Embedded Communications Software. Business Wire.
October 5, 1998. Retrieved 16 December 2008.
[10] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2516#section-5.1
[11] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2516#section-5.2
[12] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2516#section-5.3
[13] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2516#section-5.4
[14] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2516#section-5.5
[15] Dirk Van Aken, Sascha Peckelbeen Encapsulation Overhead(s) in ADSL Access Networks, June 2003
[16] Encapsulation Overhead(s) in ADSL Access Networks.
See also
Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
[20]
[21] http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?
71785-ArcherC7-Firmware-improvements
[22] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crvbWQrEn4
[23] Tested with Maryland and Virigina at http://www.
verizon.com/Support/Residential/internet/highspeed/
troubleshooting/installation/questionsone/88283.htm on
2013-12-11
[24] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6934/?include_text=1
[25] Dave Hood and Elmar Trojer (2012). Gigabit-capable
Passive Optical Networks. John Wiley & Sons. p. 200.
ISBN 978-1-118-15558-5.
[26] Dave Hood and Elmar Trojer (2012). Gigabit-capable
Passive Optical Networks. John Wiley & Sons. p. 207
and 274275. ISBN 978-1-118-15558-5.
[27] Dave Hood and Elmar Trojer (2012). Gigabit-capable
Passive Optical Networks. John Wiley & Sons. p. 261
and 271. ISBN 978-1-118-15558-5.
[28] http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/
TR-200.pdf
[29] Michael Beck (2005). Ethernet in the First Mile : The IEEE
802.3ah EFM Standard. McGraw Hill Professional. p.
241. ISBN 978-0-07-146991-3.
[30] Xavier Carcelle (2009). Power Line Communications in
Practice. Artech House. p. 235. ISBN 978-1-59693336-1.
External links
RFC 2516 - A Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)
RFC 3817 - Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Active Discovery Relay for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE)
RFC 4638 - Accommodating a Maximum Transit
Unit/Maximum Receive Unit (MTU/MRU) Greater
Than 1492 in the Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE)
RFC 4938 - PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE) Extensions
for Credit Flow and Link Metrics
US Patent 6891825 Method and system of providing
multi-user access to a packet switched network
EXTERNAL LINKS
10
10.1
10.2
Images
File:Ambox_important.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
10.3
Content license