Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I've hit a problem with the syncPPP module within Linux.
>
> Seems to me that when you get the conf-request in opened state, you
> should send your conf-request before sending the conf-ack to the
> peer's conf-request. I think this would short-circuit the loop (I
> could be wrong though, it's getting late).
Thanks but I've already tried that. You get a slightly different pattern
to the loop but it still loops.
> That behaviour would be in line with the FSM in rfc1661, where the
> action for event RCR+ in Opened state is "tld,scr,sca/8", i.e. the one
> action involves sending both the conf-request and the conf-ack. It is
> debatable to what extent that specifies the order of the messages but
> it does list the conf-request first FWIW.
RFC1661 states: multiple actions may be implemented in any convenient order.
So if it had worked we'd still have been conformant.
I've also tried dropping selected packets when I see the condition, simulating
a noisy line or buggy driver whilst keeping the PPP state machine conformant.
Problem is you need to generate the conf-ack to get the remote end into the
LCP opened state whilst not dropping out of it yourself.
--
Bob Dunlop FarSite Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.xyzzy.clara.co.uk www.farsite.co.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
