Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:40:14 -0600 From: Gary Aitken <garya@ics.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: user ppp with dedicated line Message-ID: <319A331E.6BDB@ics.com> References: <3199FF85.21E7@ics.com> <199605151708.LAA19463@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 2. In order to get ppp to work on my dedicated line, I needed > > to make the following mods to force packet mode: ... > > + PacketMode(); > > } > > > > Without looking at the code, how else would the 'dedicated' mode go into > packet mode? Is there some code that would cause packet mode it would > fall into later? Not that I could tell. I guess a more appropriate question would then be, does anyone know if ppp is supposed to work with a dedicated line without modification? If so, how do I force it into packet mode? My reading of the code and attempts at debugging lead me to believe the above mod was the only way to get it to work, but I'm not claiming to be brilliant... > > 4. I tried putting some logprintf debug code in SelectSystem, > > to check to see if ppp.linkup was even being read; > > but doing so caused a core dump. Can someone explain why, and > > give me a hint as to how to debug this? > > Where/why is it dumping core? Ugh. Turns out the connection to the log daemon wasn't open, I guess; skipping the first round of calls (when ppp.conf is being dealt with) got past the problem. Also turns out the reason ppp.linkup was having no effect was that the entry looked like: mylink: # # a bunch of comments # more comments add 0 0 HISADDR The parsing for a given entry stops not at the next entry, but at the next entry *or an empty line*. Is this intended behavior? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to stop only at the next entry or eof? > > 6. When running in dedicated (or direct, I think) mode, > > attempting to connect via a telnet to port 3000 appears > > to work, but typing commands produces no output and you > > have to kill the telnet session to recover. Is this a > > known problem? Or, as usual, I'm screwing something up? ... > > I don't think you need to run it in direct mode. I understand. But shouldn't it be possible in dedicated mode to telnet to 3000 and pass commands to control the process? -- Gary Aitken garya@ics.com (business) garya@dreamchaser.org (personal)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?319A331E.6BDB>