Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:52:39 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org> To: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp fsm.c Message-ID: <199903010252.SAA58789@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
brian 1999/02/28 18:52:39 PST
Modified files:
usr.sbin/ppp fsm.c
Log:
Comment why we do a TLF when we get a ``Down'' event in state
``closing''.
Pointed out by: archie
Don't do a TLF when we get a ``Catastrphic Protocol Reject'' event
in state ``closed'' or ``stopped''.
Pointed out but not suggested by: archie
This makes no difference in the current implementation as
LcpLayerFinish() does nothing but log the event, but I disagree
in principle because it unbalances the TLF/TLS calls which
(IMHO) doesn't fit with the intentions of the RFC.
Maybe the RFC author had a reason for this. It can only happen
in two circumstances:
- if LCP has already been negotiated then stopped or closed and we
receive a protocol reject, then we must already have done a TLF.
Why do one again and stay in the same state ?
- if LCP hasn't yet been started and we receive an unsolicted
protocol reject, why should we TLF when we haven't done a TLS ?
Revision Changes Path
1.40 +6 -3 src/usr.sbin/ppp/fsm.c
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903010252.SAA58789>