Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
banyezdemah
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 am
Contact:

PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:20 pm

Hi

I have 2 office in different areas. Both have 1 MikroTik router and have internet connection.
I want that users of the office #2 connect to the MikroTik router of office #1 via PPPoE connection.
I think I should first setup an EoIP tunnel between 2 MikroTik routers.

Am I able to setup such service ?!


Regards
 
banyezdemah
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:00 pm

Anyone ?
 
User avatar
marioclep
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:36 pm
Location: Cordoba - Argentina
Contact:

Re: PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:12 pm

If PPPoE is mandatory, then you need to create some L2 tunnel. EoIP is an alternative, but you'll have too much overhead. However I recommend you tu read the following link: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:BC ... _bridging)

Regards
 
banyezdemah
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:39 pm

there is nothing on that link !!!
 
fewi
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 7717
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:19 am

Re: PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:00 pm

When copying/pasting the closing bracket - the ")" - got dropped. Add it to the URL. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:BC ... _bridging)
 
nuclearcat
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:52 pm

Re: PPPoE over EoIP ?!

Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:35 pm

PPP has much higher overhead. Control protocol with authentication and negotiation, plus PPP frame encapsulation, it is also stateful, and can stop in case of packetloss or etc.
EoIP is plain stateless tunnel, which is more stable also, with only 28 bytes overhead (IP header + gre header).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], complexxL9, davordaco86, ismel0x, jaclaz, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 178 guests