On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 05:35 -0500, Peter Naulls wrote: > On 1/17/22 2:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > own problems, but maybe not the ones you're worried about. > > > > I haven't read the whole thread in detail, so forgive me if this > > was > > covered. Perhaps a way of tagging a modem/driver/whatever with > > "never > > use PPP" would be workable. Off by default of course. > > If you like. Whatever is going to work for the general use case. > > However, no matter how you finely tune it, no matter how you choose > values, > there's always a chance of detection failure (which is OK), but > falling > back to PPP is never going to be acceptable, certainly not in what > I'm > building. I don't need to be debugging such situations in the field; > there's no justification for it.
What's your desired error state when detection fails? Just mark the whole modem as failed, and you'd have some custom logic to twiddle modem power and/or reboot the machine? or something else? Dan > > I'd prefer to pursue removing PPP dependency entirely as I'm doing; > that saves space, and reduces complexity. Let me know if is going > to be something that works for you. I just wish I'd done this 6 > months ago; would have saved myself a lot of grief. > > > > >