In message <uPKau49XIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
<PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote:

>In news:pf1kp31vi1bc8bhdqjjn2k2hom4or933pu@4ax.com,
>DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> typed:
>
>> ADSL does *not* cause MTU issues. PPPoE does. Not all ADSL providers
>> force PPPoE down your throat.
>
>I said ADSL is synomous with PPPoE. I have not yet heard of ADSL being
>offered without it. Therefore using logical deduction, ADSL, because of
>PPPoE, causes MTU issues.

TELUS, Nucleus, Radiant, and half a dozen smaller companies in Western
Canada, to bring up a few examples. I'm confident that there are
others, but since I have never attempted to order ADSL elsewhere, I
can't speak to any personally. There definitely used to be one in LA
though, as I had a friend down there that moaned about how much more he
paid and that he "couldn't" change to a cheap ISP because they used
PPPoE, his did not.

I worked for a company based in the late 90s and earlier parts of this
decade which deployed four different ADSL technologies, three of which
existed before the local telco offered any form of ADSL (so we did not
simply wholesale DSL ports, we used telco dry copper loops, or in some
cases, ran our own copper out), and at no time did we ever deploy PPPoE.

>And as far as your throat comment, I'm kind of surprised after all the
>I've offered you in the past. We're professionals, at least I thought as
>much.

The annoyance wasn't addressed at you, but rather, the providers who
force PPPoE upon their customers, despite it's technical limitations and
general hassle. It wasn't intended as any form of personal attack, and
I apologize for any offense.

Personally, I consider the smaller packet size to be a design flaw,
given that had jumbo-packets been supported in the original spec, before
hardware deployments began, the PPPoE overhead could have been a
non-issue.