Hi Brian,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:42:26AM -0400, Brian Stull wrote:
> Thank you Sylvain.
>
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with LWIP to make the changes that you
> mentioned but I'll look at it more closely.
>
> With the current implementation, if I wait in the sio_write() function
> until
Hi Bill,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:08:07PM +, Bill Auerbach wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 17:56, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> >
> > They even do perfect documentation (perfect documentation is almost
> > always the case with Atmel) about lwIP[1], way better than our own
&
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:13:59AM -0500, Stephen Cowell wrote:
> Hey Enrico,
> I'm using GNU toolchain/compiler, supplied with Atmel Studio 6.1.
> Since I've added the code I've had no other problems; I really don't
> have much time to research this, what with other pressures at
Hi Joel,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:10:39PM +, Joel Cunningham wrote:
> You can use SO_SNDTIMEOUT, which should work on LwIP 1.4.1. I have used it
> in my port with LwIP 1.4.1, so possibly there's a problem with your port?
>
> I've also written applications that used non-blocking sockets
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:51:14PM -0500, Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> I find that I sometimes get an infinite loop when stepping to
> pcb->next...
I didn't have to read further. As usual, it looks like a broken port or
usage which violate lwIP threading model.
Summary:
- Do *NOT*
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:59:19PM -0500, Stephen Cowell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 3:41 PM, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:51:14PM -0500, Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > > I find that I sometimes get an infinite loop when stepping to
> &g
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:59:19PM -0500, Stephen Cowell wrote:
> > On 10/12/2015 3:41 PM, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:51:14PM -0500, Stephen Cowell w
Hello Stefano,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Bettega Stefano wrote:
I have the same problem, but working with NO_SYS=0 (ucOS-II), and lwIP
1.4.1 from stable repository branch.
(...)
Am I missing something? Anyone could help?
Please try with master branch first, lwIP 1.4.1
Hi Bram,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:40:52PM +, Bram Peeters wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding, I took a slight detour running into ;p
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lwip-devel/2012-01/msg00018.html
>
> Anyway, before diving into the dhcp problem again I
Hi Bram,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:10:28AM +, Bram Peeters wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification!
>
> I had to add
> #define LWIP_DHCP_CHECK_LINK_UP 1
> as well to make
>
> > netif_set_up();
> > dhcp_start();
> > Then DHCP will start if netif is already "link up" or at the next
Hi Bram,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hi Bram,
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:10:28AM +, Bram Peeters wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification!
> >
> > I had to add
> > #define LWIP_DHCP_CHECK_LINK_UP 1
> > a
Hi Darius,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:36:02AM +0300, Darius Babrauskas wrote:
>
> About systimeouts I found her(old info):
> http://lwip.wikia.com/wiki/Porting_for_an_OS
This is very outdated, sys_arch_timeouts() is not needed anymore circa
2011.
> Its my opinion, because some year ago my
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 04:41:34PM +0300, Darius Babrauskas wrote:
>
> Maybe, not was supported the Linux port. Strange, that gettimeofday
> CLOCK_REALTIME was used long time.
I don't understand any of that.
> This can damage the test results. Exmp. NTP client can change
> systemtime at
Hi Pirvu,
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 02:05:38PM +0300, Pîrvu Mihai wrote:
> Hello guys, I'm sorry if this was posted before, but i couldn't find an
> answer, so I'm gonna post here in search of one.
>
> I want to create a simple multi-threaded TCP server, that handled each new
> connection on a
Hi Darius,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:01:27PM +0300, Darius Babrauskas wrote:
> Hi Mihai,
>
> It looks that you have problems with systimeouts. Each tread must have
> self systimeout stuct.
I disagree, only the lwIP core thread handle timeouts. Maybe your design
outside of lwIP require a
Hi Pîrvu,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:19:36PM +0300, Pîrvu Mihai wrote:
> Thing is that's exctly what I done before this approach. Here's a similar
> code that I tried, where I create an array of sessions and look for the
> first one that's available, and use that one to accept a new connection. I
Hi Abdul,
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:07:22AM +0100, Abdul Hakeem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Could anyone recommend a lightweight tunnel application, probably small enough
> to fit in a simcard for use with LWIP ?
lwIP master branch supports L2TP tunnels (as initiator, i.e. LAC), we
couldn't be less
Hi Norberto,
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:26:35AM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> How are you doing?
>
> I am facing a problem in the use PPP-lwip.
> I have a application (app) using lwip stack. The app implements an echo
> message server (messages replier).
> The connection is through the
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Gennaro Zazo wrote:
>
> Attached the log, I apologize if it is rude. If you need to change the
> debug mask let me know.
The garbaged log probably means you are violating lwIP threading
constraints. You can notice that PPP negotiated up to a
Hi Greg,
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:09:33PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hi, Simon.
>
> Server was definitely not supported in 1.4.1. But it seems to be
> working pretty well in 2.0.0 Beta1. I am interested in Sylvain's
> feedback on this, though.
Yup, "server" mode is supported for quite a
Hi Ajay,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:19:11PM +0530, cont...@rickeyworld.info wrote:
> >
> > What you are looking for is a NAT[1] implementation, not basic IP
> > routing[2], lwIP does not provide NAT at all. There used to be a
> > basic NAT feature merged in, but it was removed because the one
Hi Norberto,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:14:17AM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> Hi Sylvain.
>
> I changed the "simhost.c" file to use the pppos_input_sys function
> (attached full file) conforming your orientation.
Well, I mislead you, sorry, you have to use pppos_input_tcpip, not
Hi Ajay,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:04:15PM +0530, cont...@rickeyworld.info wrote:
> > Hi Ajay,
> >
> > This is a bit hard to answer an open question like yours.
> >
> > Anyway, last time I tried, IP forwarding between a PPP session
> > (whatever the low level protocol used) and an Ethernet
Hi Darius,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:22:30AM +0300, Darius Babrauskas wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> – there is a transmit error such as too many retries or a transmit
> under run.
>
> (...)
I have two patches against the AVR32 MACB driver in my tree, and it
look like it might fix your issues.
-
Hi Norberto,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:35:06PM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> Hi Sylvain.
>
> How I told you, I am facing problems with TCP-PPP in lwip scenario.
> Then I decided use just a raw lwip code to reproduce the problem and, if it
> is possible, could you use it to reproduce
Hi Danil,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0600, Danil Kaykov wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I need correctway to check state of the connection, and if it is
> aborted/disconnected/etc, reconnect.
You should use TCP keepalive, lwIP supports that.
> Now I do it with the help of test sending some
Hi Frédéric,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:52:43PM +, Frédéric Grandjean wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using LWIP 1.4.1 and I'm facing an issue with "brutal" raw socket
> disconnection.
>
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> - Create a TCP_PCB listener (server)
>
> - On connection
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 08:03:31PM +0300, Gennady Shmakov wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm using latest master branch lwip from 28 Feb 2016 in FreeRTOS
> environment.
> I have a problem with PPPoS when interfacing with 3G modem.
> Sometimes ppp netif cannot authenticate/obtain IP address.
> What makes
Hi Norberto,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:25:17PM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> Hi Sylvain.
>
> I had problem with the patch file (git use). Then I fetch/rebase only my
> lwip git-repo today (hash = 4beacc4ca0b2dd166dd50b1b8614f87fe0b67516), ok?
Yes, it's almost the same thing, I took
Hi Norberto,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 01:01:12PM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
>
> I would like remember you the code used to reproduce the PPP/TCP error is
> practically the same of the lwip git-repos (lwip e contrib), last Friday
> (jan/15/2016) version, only the "simhost.c" and
Hi Norberto,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:41:53PM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hi Norberto,
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:00:44AM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> > Great Sylvain!
> > With VJ_SUPPORT=0 the test works fine.
> >
> > The problem is
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:42:14PM +0300, Gennady Shmakov wrote:
> I would agree with Sylvain.
> If we introduce something that will make lwip drop packets and let higher
> protocols to handle that then it might be ok with TCP, but with UDP and
> such it will not.
> My point here is that
Hi Norberto,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:00:44AM -0200, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> Great Sylvain!
> With VJ_SUPPORT=0 the test works fine.
>
> The problem is solved. Your help was fundamental.:-)
Well, not really, we know the issue is probably about VJ support, but
that's all we know,
Hi Norberto,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 03:28:32PM -0300, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> Hi, how are you?
>
> I would like to understand what can be happening in my setup (attached
> figure). I have 03 VM´s (all with SO-Linux), just one with echo-server
> application, the others with echo-client
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 08:01:59PM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 03:28:32PM -0300, Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
> >
> > I would like to understand what can be happening in my setup (attached
> > figure). I have 03 VM´s (all with SO-Linux), just
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:36:32PM +0300, Gennady Shmakov wrote:
> Hi,
> I've got to the root of this problem.
>
> Sergio, Patrick, thank you for suggesting looking at the byte stream. It
> helped a lot to solve it.
Thank you very much Patrick for the deep inspection, I'm quite
overwhelmed
Hi Greg,
If you could configure your MUA to properly add quote-marks that would
be great, that's a bit hard to guess where you answered in the
text/plain form.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:14:02PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> From: Sylvain Rochet [mailto:grada...@gradator.net]
> >
Hi Greg,
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:10:55PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> From: Sylvain Rochet [mailto:grada...@gradator.net]
> >
> > Well, you are right, you can't. You are actually the first one to
> > ask. I can't remember that far away but that wasn't possible in
&g
Hi Greg,
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:24:36PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> From: Sylvain Rochet [mailto:grada...@gradator.net]
> >
> > Not really, the last user of the SIO framework is SLIP. The SIO API
> > sucks, I proposed my help to get rid of it in SLIP in
&g
Hi Greg,
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:14:32PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> From: lwip-users [mailto:lwip-users-bounces+gsmith=hennypenny@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Sylvain Rochet
> >
>
> Sorry -- I seem to have forgotten the " 't " while I was typing. :-)
>
Hi Andy,
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:09:46AM +0100, Andy Pont wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have switched the network code I was using to the 2.0.0-beta1 release that
> we were notified about earlier in the week and my previously working
> application code is now throwing an error.
>
> (...)
>
> With
Hi Greg,
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:10:41PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have been looking forward to the PPP enhancements made in lwIP 2.0.0
> Beta1 compared to 1.4.1. I've added the new version to my project
> with success and have a few questions about configuring PPP. I
>
Hi,
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:29:42PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
> >In lwIP 2.0.0 Beta1, it has a prototype in sio.h for sio_write, which I
> >believe is the generic function name for the PPP output function.
>
> Not exactly. sio_write is used for PPP, for slipif and
Hi Greg,
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 02:27:15AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:10:41PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have been looking forward to the PPP enhancements made in lwIP 2.0.0
> > Beta1 compared to 1.4.1. I've
Hi Simon,
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 07:37:19AM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > Not really, the last user of the SIO framework is SLIP. The SIO API sucks,
> > I proposed my help to get rid of it in SLIP in
> > <20150914191715.ga1...@grad
Hi Frédéric,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:17:37AM +, Frédéric Grandjean wrote:
> Dear community members,
>
> I need your lights about a behavior of LwIP;
>
> We just solved an issue in our app, in RAW mode, when a PCB was
> disconnected (RESET) by the remote host. In that case, the bug was
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Mike Fleetwood wrote:
>
> I tried one of Noam's linked examples (included below) - but that showed
> exactly the same problem, stopped sending after about 20 minutes (I couldn't
> tell if it was ERR_USE again, but no reason to think it was any
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:46:54PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Sylvain, have you read the I tried one of Noams linked
> examples (included below) part of Mikes message? ;-)
That doesn't change anything, the snippet is still terribly wrong. A
name is just a string :-), everyone is
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0300, Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
>
> UDP is message oriented, so you have to split your data in datagrams,
> because a datagram must fit on an IP datagram on an Ethernet frame.
No, IP supports fragmentation, and lwIP supports fragmented IP packets
using
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:46:20PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Do you happen to know if there's a way to turn of the filter with a
> command-line option for pppd so I could see similar to what I'm not
> able to see in lwIP?
Yes, PPP data packets never reach pppd so pppd can't
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:30:14PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have some devices in the field that have all PPP authentication
> turned off for PPP. Now that lwIP supports MSCHAPv2 and MPPE (in the
> 2.0.0 betas), I'd like to enable those features on my devices to
>
Hi Patrick,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:49:03PM -0400, Patrick Klos wrote:
>
> It's been a long time since I was a PPP expert,
Well, from here you know more than me about PPP even if I'm maintaining
the lwIP PPP stack for over 4 years now. So don't worry :p
By the way, thank you very much for
Hi Greg,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:48:19AM +, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> I have a follow-on question. Below I said I was able to connect with
> MSCHAPv2 or no authentication. I think I was actually not
> authenticating in either case. So... Is there a way to have PPP try
> authentication
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:56:43PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> At the very bottom is a clip with some sample output I get during
> connecting and
> reception of a couple TCP keepalive packets. (The keepalive seems to
> print the packet data.)
This is a bug, packet trace is meant
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Laurent BIERGE wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I've played with LWIP_DEPUG a bit and i'm now able to see what's happening.
> Reminder: i try to use a LWIP UDP echo program which is on a remote
> equipment. I send UDP datagrams from my computer.
>
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:27:28AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:06:25PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> >
> > I'm open for votes on what else to include into 2.0.0 final, but I'd rather
> > throw out 2.0.1 soon instead of delaying 2.0.0 furt
Hi Greg,
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:10:41PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have been looking forward to the PPP enhancements made in lwIP 2.0.0
> Beta1 compared to 1.4.1. I've added the new version to my project
> with success and have a few questions about configuring PPP. I
>
Hi Jaime,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:21:22PM -0500, Jaime Fernández wrote:
>
> Typo, I meant NO_SYS = 0.
You can't use ethernet_input function with !NO_SYS, this function is not
thread safe and part of the lwIP "raw" API, you have to use tcpip_input
instead.
Sylvain
signature.asc
Hi Jaime,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:21:22PM -0500, Jaime Fernández wrote:
>
> Can the raw api be used with an OS or is it exclusively for none os
> implementations ?
That's properly documented inside lwip/doc/rawapi.txt AFAIK.
It can be used, but all raw API calls must be from the TCPIP
Hi Jaime,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 07:00:11PM -0500, Jaime Fernandez Hoffiz wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
>
> I think I actually use tcpip_input but please correct me if I'm doing
> something wrong
>
> this is how I add the netif:
>
> Inside my callback if I change from ethernet_input to tcpip_input I
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:14:32AM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > You can't call tcpip_input() from an interrupt, this is a blocking
> > message passing, it can block.
>
> It's not: tcpip_input/tcpip_inpkt calls sys_mbox_trypost(), w
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:55:31AM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > the problem here is that some OS have two
> > differents API, one which must be called from interrupt context, and one
> > from threads. This is the case at least for FreeRTOS:
Hi Sylvain,
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:34:14PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to. Restart have a very different meaning whether we use PPPoS,
> > PPPoE or PPPoL2TP.
> >
> > The main problem here is that PPP was designed for PPPoS at first, there
> > are a
> > lot of PPP options
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:15:56AM -0400, Patrick Klos wrote:
>
> Again, the TermReq packet is an LCP packet. If your peer is ignoring
> all LCP packets (as you stated earlier), it's just ignore that packet
> as well. I'm sure you could find a way to get LwIP to send the packet
> -
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
>
> It means sending the TermReq packet with a new random magic is not going
> to work anyway, this is what the magic is for actually, to protect the
> LCP channel for outsiders, hey ;-)
^^^
Hi Patrick,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:08:40PM -0400, Patrick Klos wrote:
>
> That's not how the Magic-Number option is used. The Magic-Number is
> primarily used to detect when the link is (or becomes) looped back. If the
> sender receives an LCP Configure-Request (or other LCP packets which
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:02:39AM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:08:40PM -0400, Patrick Klos wrote:
> >
> > At this point, I think a packet (or byte) trace is the best diagnostic to
> > show what's happening here.
>
> Yes
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:17:15PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> >Humm, I would have thought that a revision release didn't change the API
> >at all,
>
> Thinking about it again, I guess it was an ABI change, not an API change.
>
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 08:17:42PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> Right. We didn't have binary compatiblity in mind, so after removing some
> flags, some other flags' values have changed. That might still work if you
> fix them up after netif_add() (which calls the netif's init
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:21:43PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> I totally agree this would be nice to have a data trace. I do already
> have a facility to output printf() data to a console or Telnet
> session. However, when I turned on all those options (PRINTPKT_SUPPORT
> was the
Hi Greg,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:50:02PM +, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Agreed that most won't be necessary.
> Right now, I'd like to be able to set the following lcp_options:
> passive,
Done.
> silent,
Done.
> restart*,
>
> *restart may not be needed. I don't see it implemented
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:06:25PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> 2.0.0 Beta1 is nearly 2 months old now and we should move on. 2 months are
> already too long, so the only thing I plan to add for an actual release is:
> - make TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING the default (todo:
Hi Jeffrey,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:25:48PM +, Wormsley, Jeffrey (Jeff) wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use an ESP8266 as a WiFi to PPP bridge?
Short answer: yes, since ESP8266 can host your application :-)
> I have a device whose hardware is fixed, but is Linux based and has
> LAN and
Hi Fotis,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:44:35PM +0200, Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with LWIP, where after some time of normal operation, all
> TCP communications die. After lots of headbanging, I found that tcp_tmr()
> stops beeing called.
>
> I examined the functions
Hi Fotis,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To begin with, I do call sys_check_timeouts() very often. I also tried
> v2.0.1, where the problem vanishes. I believe it is fixed by the following
> addition:
>
> } else if (timeout->time >
Hi Axel,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:24:29AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> I got below log after ppp_connect() success:
(...)
> [00:14:29:361] status_cb: Connected␍␊
> [00:14:29:361]our_ipaddr = 10.0.2.66␍␊
> [00:14:29:361]his_ipaddr = 10.0.2.55␍␊
> [00:14:29:361]netmask =
Hi Jeffrey,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:37:28PM +, Wormsley, Jeffrey (Jeff) wrote:
> >
> > But, long answer, you will have to change a little bit the PPP lwIP
> > stack to hook PPP IP input/output to bypass the IP stack, since you
> > don't need it (you want a L2-ish bridge).
> >
> >
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:24:39PM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:50:26AM +, Noam Weissman wrote:
> >
> > If you set your interrupt level to be higher priority than the
> > FreeRTOS timer tick that part will never Be masked and your
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:50:26AM +, Noam Weissman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This comes from my own experience with STM micro that has Cortex-M core
> Running with FreeRTOS. It does apply to STM9 etc...
>
> TCP main task priority should be high priority. It should not be the
> highest
Hi Wayne,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:56:24PM +1000, Wayne Uroda wrote:
> I was looking through my codebase recently (a mix of code from LPC Open,
> and also a project I inherited) and I saw a comment which I want to fact
> check:
>
> /* TCPIP thread must run at higher priority than MAC threads!
Hi Axel,
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:55:15PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using current lwIP master tree.
>
> I got my device connect to internet via 4G/LTE module now (by PPPoS).
> However, I found sometimes download file size mismatch when
> try to download some files (about 100KB) from
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 08:03:09PM +0100, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> Oops, didn't see that before pushing the 'send' button :-)
>
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> >The RX thread (if any) should have a higher priority than the TCPIP thread,
>
> That's probably true. Having i
Hi Ari,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:13:10PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This related to http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?48568
>
> I have a system which sleeps long times but sys_now() progresses during
> sleep.
> Currently this still seems to cause some surprises with timers.
>
Hi Anand,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:56:34PM +0530, anand arjunan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using PPP (from Windows contribution) of lwIP implementation and
> trying to establish a PPP dial-up connection form my windows machine
> through iridium modem using a *serial (RS232) *connection between
Hi Marco,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:58:05PM +0100, Marco Jakobs wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure where and why ... that's not modified and PPP runs in
> > > it's own thread ...
> >
> > How would PPP do that in vanilla lwIP 1.4.1? Only the input escaping
> > can be done in a separate thread, the
Hi Marco,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:22:13PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Marco Jakobs wrote:
> > [..]
> > Writing a known pattern in the payload I confirm that the first two packets
> > of 1024 bytes
> > are matching! So the 3rd fragment of 752 is just not sent over the PPP.
> >
> >
Hi Marco,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:12:13PM +0100, Marco Jakobs wrote:
>
> It can be as slow as possible (I'm using an RTOS, so it's not blocking
> anything) ... but it should never loose data ;-)
Using an RTOS doesn't change anything, your uart tx function must wait
if your
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:19:23PM +0100, Marco Jakobs wrote:
>
> It looks as if the second packet of 1400 bytes (starting with 3),
> which is written on the connection before 1) was already sent over the
> PPP link, overwrites the already queued segment 2).
It can't really happen, are
Hi Marco,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:30:47PM +0100, Marco Jakobs wrote:
>
> Any debugs which would help here? It would be hard to anyone to
> reproduce this via a fast Ethernet link as the xmit is too fast here
> to have the first packet still in transmit while the second one is
> written.
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:52:42PM +0100, sg wrote:
>
> Well, on a system with PPP *and* standard ETH, you obviously can't
> wait for the serial interface to transmit before serving ETH?
That's a known limitation which was discussed at length before. A slow
interface is going to
Hi Marco,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:25:24PM +0100, Marco Jakobs wrote:
>
> it must happen before it goes to PPP. If there would be issues in the
> serial stream (causing lost data), the sequence number of the next
> unbroken fragment would be wrong. As the sequence numbers in the "lost
>
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:55:59PM +0100, Daniel Pauli wrote:
> Hey there
>
> Is there any possibility in LwIP to wake up a select() call from another
> thread? I want to update the file descriptor set as soon as the server
> accepts a new connection without the need to wait until the
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:12:09PM +0200, Dirk Ziegelmeier wrote:
> I sent this link because of the first answer:
>
>
> It is not possible to bridge between wireless (client a.k.a. station mode)
> and wired interfaces according to this thread on linux-ath5k-devel
>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:30:46PM +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:12:09PM +0200, Dirk Ziegelmeier wrote:
> > I sent this link because of the first answer:
> >
> >
> > It is not possible to bridge between wireless (client a
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 09:38:34PM +, Noam Weissman wrote:
>
> Sorry I meant netconn_recv etc...
This is still very ugly (and wrong for my point of view on perfect
software).
Waiting for something to happen for a given time should be achieved
using the LWIP_SO_RCVTIMEO feature.
If
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:43:44PM +, Noam Weissman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why not use the RAW API server that is in the contribution ?
>
> I am not using it because am using my own modified code that was created
> before the current version.
> As far as I know it works nicely and many are
Hi Axel,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:58:10PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>
> Below is what I do to start PPP:
>
> Send "AT+CGDCONT=,,"
> Send "AT+CGAUTH=[, [, , ]]"
> Send "AT+CFUN=1"
> Send "ATD*99***#"
>
> ppp_set_usepeerdns(ppp, 1);
> ppp_set_auth(ppp, PPPAUTHTYPE_ANY, userId, password);
>
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:40:53PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> After my device join an AP and get the ip (e.g. 192.168.0.102).
> My device can ping the gateway ip and other devices in the same network.
> Other devices can ping my test device running lwip.
> But if I try to ping my own ip
Hi Axel,
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:22:58PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> Now I tried some different SIM cards on my device.
> One of the SIM card always fails and I got PPPERR_CONNECT.
> I double checked my code and settings but still don't figure out which
> part is wrong.
> (It works if using
Hi Axel,
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:02:59PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot, Sylvain.
>
> I checked the code and you are right.
> I was expecting I will get PPPERR_NONE soon after ppp_connect().
> So I wait for 20 seconds but don't get PPPERR_NONE and the error path
> calls ppp_close.
201 - 300 of 398 matches
Mail list logo
