On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
|Clifford Kite wrote:
|
|> |In my current project we have an edited pppd 2.3.7 running on Linux
|>
|> Edited?
|
|Yes, edited as in custom changes. Although not in the framing or deframing
|code. I hope to at least bring some of the ideas to the rest of the world
|if the company I do this for agree with me.
|
|> The 7e is a frame separator and there was already one at the end of the
|> preceding frame, just as there is one at the end of this frame. The 7e at
|> the beginning of the first frame is optional but many PPP implementation
|> include it. Consecutive frames can be, and often are, sent without 7e at
|> the beginning of the frames.
|
|Ok, so that explains why the client end sends the frames this way.
|
|How come the receiving end doesn't view that package in the same way? Why
|is the package treated as a bad one?
I don't know the answer to either question and my C programming experience
isn't enough to allow me to easily find the answers by looking at source
code written at the level pppd is written. If you are able to modify the
pppd 2.3.7 source then you may also be able to determine answers to these
questions simply by reading the source code.
|I have not messed with the frame decoder, this is the 2.3.7 orginal. Could
|this be a problem addressed in a later release?
I've had a moderate amount of programming experience in languages other
than C and know that when you modify code, particularly someone else's
code, then it is no longer the original. If you observe the same behavior
with a pristine 2.3.7 then you'll know that the original is the source of
the behavior and not in any way caused by the modifications you made.
I suppose it could be something that was addressed in a later release - at
least until someone shows that it is not a problem but a feature, or that
it was not addressed in a later release. :)
---
Clifford Kite Not a guru. (tm)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
