Scott Roberts wrote: > > I've never heard efficiency as a reason to use PPP over HDLC. > there are more > options with PPP, but otherwise both are based upon SDLC and > therefore > nearly identical from a protocol perspective. I suppose HDLC > are a couple > bytes smaller, but this would be negligable. > > I'd say if your PPP is configured and working fine, why bother > to go through > the motions of changing for a 0.1% benefit?
I agree. A PPP link might take a second or two longer to come up because of the option negotiation and any PAP or CHAP authentication, but once it's running, there's no reason it would be significantly less efficient than HDLC. Cisco's HDLC implementation is the simplest protocol in the world. The header is very small. It sends keepalives every 10 seconds by default. But PPP is very simple too and the LCP layer of PPP uses keepalives or something equivalent too, if I'm not mistaken. Priscilla > > scott > > ""Stuart Pittwood"" wrote in > message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance > from our > > 1Mb line by using HDLC rather than PPP. > > > > > > > > Is this correct? > > > > > > > > If so is it just a case of changing the Encapsulation PPP to > > Encapsulation HDLC on both ends of the link? > > > > > > > > Are there any implications I should be aware of? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > _________________________ > > > > Stuart Pittwood, MCSE > > > > IT Technician > > > > Amery-Parkes Solicitors > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64371&t=64362 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
