[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thanks for your analysis Niranjan. Could you please elaborate on what > you meant about the lcp.c patch not being the correct approach? I think > Mike has tested it in multiple situations, and it has worked well for a > guy in the same situation down here too. > > cheers, > > nik >
Hi Nik, The comment was from the perspective of a long term cleanup of the LQM code. For instance, lqr.c currently assumes that you can either enable LQR or LCP echoes, but not both at the same time. The RFCs, however, do not disallow this scenario and LCP echoes have other uses beyond link quality monitoring. If Mike's patch offers a short term solution for your needs, go for it! (Although, I am wondering, how it would be different, if you simply did not enable LQR in ppp.conf. lqr_Setup() in lqr.c sets LQM_ECHO by default. If LQM_LQR is not set, the code will fall back to sending LCP echoes.. see SendLqrReport()...I haven't looked at this version of PPP in the greatest detail, so its possible there is a clause somewhere preventing this...) Regards, Niranjan _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
