On 12-Apr-2001 mulix wrote:
>you aren't reading the log correctly. read on to see what really
>happened.
guilty as charged - and thanks for the explanation, but the only thing I really
didn't understand, was that the innitiative for the disconnect came from the
server - the rest was **more or less** clear to me.
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Apr 12 19:07:11 shlomo1 pppd[2568]: rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0xdf]
>
>KABOOM!
>
>your pppd RECEIVED from the server an LCP TermReq packet. in plain
>words, the server requested your pppd to terminate, by sending it a
>termination request.
this is the part I misunderstood
>
>> Apr 12 19:07:11 shlomo1 pppd[2568]: LCP terminated by peer
>
>your pppd is telling you that the peer (the remote server) asked for
>termination.
>
>> Apr 12 19:07:11 shlomo1 pppd[2568]: Script /etc/ppp/ip-down started (pid
3097)
>
>pppd is starting the script that is always launced when the connection
>goes down. (it is NOT the script that causes the connection to go down)
and as a result of not understanding the LCP TermReq, I assumed wrongly that
the disconnect innitiative was here.
>> Apr 12 19:07:14 shlomo1 pppd[2568]: Connection terminated.
>
>we are dead. game over.
here we both agree :-)
>> As I write this I've been on-line for about an hour without PPP dying so
>> maybe
>> whatever was wrong has **solved itself**. I didn't do anything to solve the
>
> there is no such thing as **solved itself**. this is software, bits and
> bytes, ones and zeros, not black voodoo or arcance arts. what is
> possible is that some UNKNOWN condition has changed. what we want is to
> find out what is this condition.
Of course I agree with you - that's why I wrote **solved itself** and not
solved itself - to emphasize the fact that it only seemed so - and that I don't
have a clue what UNKNOWN condition has changed.
> you choose your ISP for your reasons, i choose my ISP for mine. fair
> enough. however, if you choose your ISP for reason A, and only reason A,
> knowing that they suck big time at reason B, complaining that they
> really suck in regards to B is not very productive...
Again, I agree, but I wasn't complaining that they suck - in my opinion, all the
ISPs are the same and haven't a clue (my opinion, of course), but I still think
that we shouldn't need a **LINUX-friendly** ISP since LINUX is not the problem.
<snip your explanations of the debug messages since you've in fact confirmed
what I already understood that all was normal>
> again, all is normal. it seems you are running pptp-linux-1.02, not
> pptp-mulix?
I'm using pptp that I compiled with the changes from the original HOWTO by Dani
Arbel (about 8 months ago) and have had no problems with it.
<snip comments on the **good** part of the log
>> and which are disconnects that I did by killing PPTP. I'll try to find log
>> messages if it happens again.
>
> grep is your friend here.
yes - I should have done that - but now I know what to look for
> this is highly peculiar. at first you fail to connect, and then you
> succeed (i assume with no configuration changes). this could be a faulty
> pptp, a faulty modem or a flunky server on the other side.
exactly what makes it so hard to figure out - I just spent about two hours on
the phone with Bezeq and **maybe** the problem is hardware - details later in
this message.
> what pptp version are you using? what modem version?
as mentioned above, I'm using pptp that I compiled with the changes from the
original HOWTO by Dani Arbel and the modem is ALCATEL.
OK - first let me thank you for all your time and help. The situation now is
that after spending two hours on the phone with Bezeq, I was able to convince
them that LINUX is not the problem (mainly since I've been online with ADSL for
8 months using LINUX only). The support guy tested the line sync from his
end and said there was a problem. We tried disconnecting all the telephones
in the house since he said maybe a bad phone was causing interference. That
didn't help. Then we tried connecting the ALCATEL modem directly to the BEZEQ
line at the entrance to the house and he said there was less interference. But
this was without the computer connected.
Then I pulled a new wire from the entrance to the house to the second floor
where the computer is located. As I write this, I've been online for nearly an
hour and am downloading at about 10 Mega a minute - 475 Mega in 47 minutes to
be exact. But the strange thing is that when I called BEZEQ again to see what
the situation looked like from their end, I was told there is intereference on
the line again - and this while I'm online and getting a good download speed.
So I don't know what to believe - obviously this is not a LINUX or software
problem. The connection works with no changes made, but I don't know what to
believe about the BEZEQ claim that I still have interference on the line.
//-------------------------
Shlomo Solomon
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://come.to/shlomo.solomon
Date: 13-Apr-2001 Time: 00:24:57
Message sent by XFMail on a LINUX Mandrake 7.2 machine
//-------------------------
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
