Subject: Re: PPP

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:14:07 -0500

> From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>

    > When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    > ...
    > I must admit, we all laughed when Karl Fox indicated that he had
    > implemented PPP over TELNET back in 1993 or so. We thought it a
    > hilarious joke. I guess my blood should have run cold back then.
    > And to think that, the reason for PPP was a response to the limitations
    > of SLIP and, oh by the way, we can use it to encapsulate IP over T1
    > lines between dissimilar routers.

Why are you surprised? Simple tools (e.g. a screwdriver) have always had the
characteristic that they can be used for more things than complex ones (e.g.
a mortise-cutting bit for a drill press - now there's a cool tool, BTW - but
I digress). The ability of people to use tools for the wrong things (e.g.
using a screwdriver as a chisel) is somewhat independent of the complexity of
the tool, but does seem to be more common for simple ones, which are more
protean.

Anyway, simple protocols, like PPP and ARP (another canonical subject of
abuse) get reused in vile ways because the architecture which they are
components of is fundamentally under-provisioned with mechanisms. But, oh, I
forgot, the IPv4 architecture is basically fine, it just needs some
engineering refinements. And Eastasia is at war with Oceania...

	Noel