>From the look of it, it seem to me that
it might be a password issue.
I usually get those l2tpd messages when
I get the password wrong which is easy
to find out (always is when you know!).

To debug further pppd add the following lines
in /etc/syslog.conf

# logging for pppd
daemon.*;local2.*                                               /var/log/ppplog

then restart syslog.
if you get something like "chap authentication failed"
it's definitely a username/password issue.
You may post your /var/log/ppplog
if you want or aren't too sure.

Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 February 2003 09:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: rp-l2tpd is closing down


Cressatti, Dominique wrote:

>am not too sure why it disconnects but
>you may want to try l2tpd as I fixed
>the packet echo problem (W2K complaining
>about loopback detected).
>
>Dom
>
>  
>
I've had already tested it and l2tpd (pty.c patched) closes down faster 
than rp-l2tp after connection has
been successfully established :

start_pppd: I'm running:  "/usr/sbin/pppd" "passive" "-detach" 
"X.Y.Z.T:A.B.C.D" "file" "/etc/ppp/options"
control_finish: Call established with 192.168.0.2, Local: 20076, Remote: 
1, Serial: 0
check_control: control, cid = 0, Ns = 4, Nr = 2
 ^Hcontrol_xmit: Maximum retries exceeded for tunnel 4092.  Closing.
call_close : Connection 101 closed to 192.168.0.2, port 1701 (Timeout)
check_control: control, cid = 0, Ns = 4, Nr = 2
handle_avps: handling avp's for tunnel 4092, call 0
message_type_avp: message type 6 (Hello)
control_xmit: Unable to deliver closing message for tunnel 4092. 
Destroying anyway.get_call:can't find tunnel 4092
network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet.  call = 
0, tunnel = 4092 Dumping.
get_call:can't find tunnel 4092
network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet.  call = 
0, tunnel = 4092 Dumping.

I'm wondering wether it could be come from peer's IP address : VPN 
client is getting access on the Internet through an adsl router which is 
performing NAT; so the LNS is knowing the private address of
the client (192.168.0.2) but in fact he's talking with another IP, which 
is public.

Regards,

-- 
BD




Reply via email to