cpghost wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:01:27 -0800
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
cpghost wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:13:13 -0800
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----------- manually restarting ppp(1), then:
------------------------
17:10:47.306928 00:00:24:c2:45:74 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype
PPPoE D (0x8863), length 32: PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40C663C1]
[Service-Name]
17:10:47.306939 00:00:24:c2:45:74 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype
PPPoE D (0x8863), length 32: PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0xC06220C1]
[Service-Name]
we still have 2 sessions instead of 1, but there is less confusion
so things sort themselves out.
Just one more thing:
If I remember correctly, sending two PADIs in quick succession
was ppp's "normal" behaviour for *years* now (is it expected or
required by the protocol? I don't know). I've always wondered
why it was so. But that didn't cause any harm as it seemed one
of the two PADO was picked up and eventually turned into a session.
-cpghost.
btw try mpd as well.
So... I'm running net/mpd5 on that router for a few days now, and
it managed 3 forced disconnects in a row and no session chaos at
all, while ppp(8) would probably have initiated a lot of parallel
sessions again but no connection.
So up until now (but perhaps it's too early to be sure?),
net/mpd5 is fine, while ppp(8) is not.
Btw, I've compared the sources of ppp(8) from 2007-09-24/25
when it was still working, and 2007-11-30 when I've updated
the router, and there's NO difference there at all. Whatever
broke ppp(8), it was not ppp(8) but something else
(I suspect ng_pppoe.c): maybe the code clean up exposed
some hidden bug in ppp(8)?
I hope ppp(8) will be fixed before 6.3-RELEASE; even though
net/mpd5 is excellent and very snappy as well. ;-)
mpd is also using ng_pppoe of course.
Regards,
-cpghost.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
