You can't just twist standards - that is what Microsoft does with
everything, they just add their own modifications to them and look what
always happens with them..
I don't see the big deal with the default 1500 MTU? Ethernet packets are
the same size (except 1520 since they have extra packet header
information) so you can't really improve it by much.
On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Joe Portman wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, MegaZone wrote:
>
> > 1500 has always worked fine for me, as long as the stack wasn't buggy
> > (like Trumpet 2.0b).
> >
> > >clients. This is NOT what PPP was designed for. It was designed for
> > >client and server to negotiate agreeable protocol parameters.
>
> Hmm. As the service provider, I might have a bit more knowledge about how
> I want that link to perform, wouldn't you say?
>
> Rather than relying on a user with 0 technical knowledge or someone elses
> buggy defaults, I do indeed want to control the setup of the link, on both
> sides, when I need to, without leading a clueless new user through the ins
> and outs of editing the Windows 95 registry. It's a known bug with Win95
> and yes, maybe I did mix MRU and MTU semantics. So what, I still want
> control of both of them, both directions.
>
> Makes a bit of sense, does it not? I have $500,000 (or more) worth of
> terminal equipment, 24+ years doing datacomm and I think I might know how
> to setup that PPP link just a little bit better than Mr/Mrs Newbie.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> Yes, in a perfect world, the RFC's make sense. In this one, they don't in
> many areas. Ever wonder why AOL chose not to use "real" PPP?
>
> Too much attention to "RFC", too little attention to the real world we
> live/work in.
>
> Nuff said,
> Back to work.
>