Jump to content

Talk:Point-to-Point Protocol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Layout Needs Improvement

[edit]

The layout for this article is a mess (rating C). Why are these sections kept separate?

  • Basic Features
  • Most important features
  • Other features

Wouldn't you say that everything in the article describes a feature? How about we rename and move the article to Features of Point-to-Point Protocol? Come on, people. Lets try again. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to change from that layout to a structure that would make more sense. I hope that helps. --MathsPoetry (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LCP and internet protocol suite

[edit]

The article mentions LCP but does not expand the acronym, define it, or link to a description. Also, would it be possible to include this article in the "Internet Protocol Suite" set of Wikipedia articles?

Re: LCP, see my recent contribution. No, PPP is not an Internet protocol, although it is heavily used in the Internet. It is a layer 2 protocol, and serves as a substrate for IP and friends. Yaron 16:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Enhanced error detection

[edit]

The section "Enhanced error detection" was messed up so I've reverted to the previous version. -Vikram 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Automatic configuration' and ipcp?

[edit]

i know from working for bt business broadband in the uk that they use IPCP when a connection is established (although networking at this level isn't my speciality and i'm not sure exactly how). should this protocol be mentioned in the 'Automatic configuration' section? --MilkMiruku 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it should be. I'll poke a sentence or two in there.
--William Allen Simpson 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is PPP over modem not tunneling?

[edit]

Why is PPP over a POTS or ISDN modem not considered as tunneling, which PPPoE and PPPoA is? PPP over modem is an LLC protocol encapsulated in another. Are modems considered as physical layer communicatoin? Okay the serial link between the modem and the computer is physical layer protocol, while Ethernet connection between ADSL modem and the computer is a link layer protocol. A modem behaves as if it were a circuit switched physical link (an asynchronous serial link), but modern modems include LLC sublayer, since they divide the data into blocks (some kind of packets) rather than codewords (there are no start and stop bits), and performs packet mode flow control and automatic repeat request. Mange01 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla PPP is tunneling. Most people use it to tunnel TCP/IP (Qbeep) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbeep (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is a tunnelling when encapsulation is done without increasing the layer number. When using a normal POTS modem, the protocol stack is : PPP (2), IP (3), TCP (4). 2 being lower as 3, this is "normal" encapsulation and not tunnelling. With PPPoE for example, at some point the layer number goes down, this is tunnelling. I hope that explanation helps. --MathsPoetry (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most important features

[edit]

(Was previously named "PPP most important issues") I wonder if this section is required? It does not seem to present any new information, and the overview of PPP seems to present the basic principles very well. I've updated the section as a temporary solution. --Stryke3 10:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with conflicting layer 2

[edit]

Is anyone familiar with having PPP alogside Ethernet MAC in the same system? It seems that when installing PPP after having a normal Ethernet installation, the latter becomes defunct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.158.137 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A short note on Multilink PPP (RFC 1990) preceding the topic on Multiclass PPP would better explain sequence numbers and their need better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.104.252.130 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Multilink PPP not mentioned, a former article on Multi-link PPP redirects to this article, so the reader searching Wikipedia for MLPPP is redirected to an article that doesn't even mention it!
Ross Fraser (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sentence about multilink PPP. I expanded it and moved it to a paragraph of its own.
--MathsPoetry (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLPPP

[edit]

MLPPP should be touch to get a brief idea about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.20.246.168 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See section above. --MathsPoetry (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to improve article?

[edit]

I'm the RFC author/editor of many of these standards and proposed standards. General wikipedia rules discourage the authors of original work from writing the articles here. But it's now tagged for expert, -- and I'm the expert. Permission to improve article?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you asking? ;] The standards are published and they are accepted standards instead of personal works so your participation is not strictly forbidden. As long as you are not doing original research here or putting forth personal opinions then there is no absolute prohibition against your participation here. I assume you'll stick to the established and proposed standards which are actually in use otherwise you'll have to leave them out because this is an encyclopedia on what actually exists today, not on possible futures. If you have doubts on individual items feel free to discuss in here whether to add them. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this answer came so much later that I didn't notice it.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement (October 2011)

[edit]

Citations and References

[edit]

I've found a couple of sources that appear useful with regard to validating the claims made on this article. I'm not sure if the sources would be considered "reliable" insofar that Wikipedia would respect their reliability. What do you think?

I will be happy to help with the process of adding cites if it is agreed that these are appropriate sources. -- fgTC 08:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has anything to add? These would/wouldn't be acceptable refs? Any other sources? -- fgTC 07:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these look to be reasonable as references. If you have the time to do so, it's even more valuable to add material to the article drawn from these references. Currently the article is a bit pedantic and not at all user-friendly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll give it my best shot over the next day or so. Please come back and review. See ya soon! -- fgTC 23:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya I think these are credible sources, good luck with the page!Millertime246 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed: those definitely look like reliable sources that you can use. The biggest problem I see with the article is that it's filled with technical jargon that doesn't really tell people who aren't already networking experts what PPP is good for and when they would want to use it (e.g. attaching their computer to the internet over a dialup connection). The PC World source is probably a better choice for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the responses here. I have been told (a few times in various places) that I am good at explaining things without resorting to jargon Channel comment (page two) by YouTube user "vnh4783" so will enjoy the challenge. -- fgTC 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple more useful references I think are suitable.

I'd appreciate being told in advance of using them if there were doubts about their appropriateness. I have a feeling this may take a few days (I am no expert either Wikipedian or network engineer type). I am working on a mirror at User:Fred_Gandt/sandbox/Point-to-Point Protocol. -- fgTC 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those references seem OK. Keep in mind the Richard Stevens books listed in TCP/IP Illustrated. Consider a Google Scholar search as well. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ed. I didn't know about the scholar search. I'll give it good poke and see what turns up. I'm having to learn as I go here so the couple/few days may have been a little naive (also it's the weekend and I'm knackered). Thankfully once the basics are done others with greater skill and/or knowledge can review and fix my work (that is if someone doesn't get it done before me). See you on the flip side! And thanks again for the heads up. fgtc 14:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a book on the history, although some inaccuracies. I've a couple of copies in a box somewhere. And the complete archives of all the discussions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ant refs you feel like adding, please go ahead. I haven't tackled any editing this involved before so for the articles sake it would be great to have more [refs]. fgtc 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: My attention is all over the place right now but I am going to be getting on with this ASAP. (eew FYI and ASAP in one comment). Thankfully I don't own the article so it isn't all dependant on me. fgtc 06:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge NCP (list)?

[edit]

I've updated Network Control Protocol to be more comprehensive, but it's still going to be just a rather short list. I'm not convinced a separate page for it is warranted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the NCP page, I agree. The contents of that page are short enough that they can be lifted entirely and placed in the PPP page and thereby reduce the need to click over the the NCP page just to read a short list of bullet points. --Vomlehn (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point-to-point protocol → Point-to-Point Protocol – This page is not abut a generic concept but about a specific protocol, and its name is always spelled capitalized in sources when referring to PPP. The page was moved by the same editor who incorrectly applied WP:LOWECASE to LCP [1] [2], ignoring the widespread practice of using capitalization (as per sources) everywhere else: Transmission Control Protocol and just about everything else in Template:IPstack. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

change to intro paragraph

[edit]

The introduction paragraph states "It connects two routers directly without any host or any other networking device in between". In many uses of PPP in broadband provider networks a PPP session is established between the home gateway (which commonly also incorporates a "modem" function) and the Broadband Remote Access Server, BRAS/RAS or Border Network Gateway BNG. In these cases there are many networking devices between the modem/home gateway and RAS/BRAS/BNG, such as the access network transmission and switching equipment (like a DSL or PON access multiplexor), ethernet aggregation, transmission etc etc. So suggest removing or any other networking device in between in the first paragraph to clarify this. Refer [1] Danwil1000 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Broadband remote access server

will ps4 ethernet rce kernel exploit affect point to point protocol?

[edit]

point to point protocol might be in danger 191.54.7.32 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes 2804:1E68:C211:DE71:98A:B2DD:B976:8822 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Point-to-Point_Protocol&oldid=1230779278"