Yes, PPP is more resource intensive on a router than straight PPP. This is
particularly true when there are multiple PPP lines terminating on a single
router. PPP keeps state information for each connection; HDLC does not.
We, Bay Networks, aren't as effected by this use of resources, as we have
far more resources available in are box to utilize. This is because of our
symetrical multiprocessing architecture. Cisco is limited to the number of
resources they can put into a box.
Now, if Cisco takes a performance hit when running PPP, why would they be
pushing the L2TP protocols so hard, which uses PPP as the transport for its
tunnel connections?
The simple point of the fact, why lock yourself into a proprietary solution
when other alternatives are available? I don't know if you'd even be able
to get the HDLC code that Cisco uses. You can't get IGRP or EIRGP code
(unless you reverse engineer it like Xylan or Ipsilon did).
If the Livingston box can handle PPP connections well, I'd stay focused on
interoperable soltuions.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Charlie Clemmer
Bay Networks
At 10:43 AM 5/22/97 -0400, Stephen Zedalis wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997, Charlie Clemmer wrote:
>
>>Perhaps that's why Livingston only supports those protocols? What's the
>>benefit of adding HDLC to a Livingston box if it can interoperate with
>>other vendors?
>
>Well, if it supported at least one of these implementations... It would
>not only make the Livingston product much faster, but there would be a
>secondary benefit to whoever the lucky compatible manufacturer was in
>terms of sales. Or it would make Livingston's own router line more
>saleable. I do know that, at least for Cisco, the difference between
>running PPP and HDLC is significant.
>
>