Hello,
I have successfully connected to NT 4 with callback both without and
with your patch.
pppn and pppt are my connection scripts for 2 users:
for user nerijus there is a number set on the server, and for user temp
user defines number.
ppp logs: log - without your patch, log.withpatch - with your patch.
It seems that there is no difference. Each log I got when making 2
connections with callback - one for user nerijus, and second for user temp.
Why there is not the option callback described anywhere? I spend a few hours
trying to find out how to use callback with NT, which uses CHAP, because all
examples are only for callback with scripts. It would be good that somebody
add example scripts to README.cbcp.
Nerijus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Urban Widmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 02, 1999 3:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: callback
>
> It is possible to get CBCP working (NT callback). I had some problems
> with
> the CBCP code in ppp-2.3.5, maybe you have run into the same problem.
>
> Does the server agree on callback?
> Have you run it with debug option?
> Do you get "AdminDefined", where the number to call is set on the
> server?
>
> For me both the server and the client seemed to agree on
> 'AdminDefined'
> callback.But they never stopped negotiating this, and the server kept
> requesting this. Here is some debug output:
>
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: rcvd [CBCP Request id=0x59
> <AdminDefined
> delay = 0>]
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: length: 3
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: user admin defined allowed
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: cbcp_resp cb_type=8
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: cbcp_resp CONF_ADMIN
> Sep 7 18:17:48 nirvana pppd[228]: sent [CBCP Response id=0x59
> <AdminDefined
> delay = 0 number = >]
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: rcvd [CBCP Request id=0x5a
> <AdminDefined
> delay = 0>]
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: length: 3
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: user admin defined allowed
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: cbcp_resp cb_type=8
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: cbcp_resp CONF_ADMIN
> Sep 7 18:17:50 nirvana pppd[228]: sent [CBCP Response id=0x5a
> <AdminDefined
> delay = 0 number = >]
>
> and so on ... notice the response/request id increasing. It
> turns out I
> wasn't talking to an NT, but to a Cisco 3600 (or?).
>
> I believe this is due to a bug in the ppp-2.3.5 code where
> pppd adds a 0
> value for the callback number which is wrong according to the draft
> specification of CBCP. Here is a patch against ppp-2.3.5 (apply in the
> pppd directory)
>
> --- cbcp.c.org Tue Sep 7 20:07:55 1998
> +++ cbcp.c Tue Sep 7 20:08:25 1998
> @@ -343,10 +343,9 @@
> if (cb_type & ( 1 << CB_CONF_ADMIN ) ) {
> syslog(LOG_DEBUG, "cbcp_resp CONF_ADMIN");
> PUTCHAR(CB_CONF_ADMIN, bufp);
> - len = 3 + 1;
> + len = 3;
> PUTCHAR(len , bufp);
> PUTCHAR(5, bufp); /* delay */
> - PUTCHAR(0, bufp);
> cbcp_send(us, CBCP_RESP, buf, len);
> return;
> }
>
> With this patch applied cbcp works for me, without it nothing happens.
> There is one warning about an "id mismatch", but that may be
> the server
> getting it wrong. Could you please try my patch and see if it
> works for
> you too?
>
> Of course you need to get the other authentication right (chap or
> similar).
>
> Please let me know if (either of) you do/do not get it to work
> using/without using this patch. So I can send some info to the ppp
> maintainers.
>
> /Urban
>
> ---
> Urban Widmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Svenska Test AB +46 90 71 71 23
>
LOG
log.withpatch
PPPN
PPPT
