From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 6 18:05:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0251016A403 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:05:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uspoerlein@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4649E43D8D for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:05:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from uspoerlein@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so348241uge for ; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; b=sDb3+Gc9ChTmkW9mM+DJg56+CvAdkuuecXh04i4exdNZEScZ8oQXOmLJKePEZKmRW7ff6QRSRaHyQ9owBxGnOiQzPBgESDocpPzCCgJmOgcBx58K0Mh1m8sYt1qfe2izCBYIv9NuZjzniQio8TAuUbAgaUyUici1nwimJsme8PA= Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr3530040ugm; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roadrunner.q.local ( [85.180.131.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 59sm2394653ugf.2006.10.06.11.05.04; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roadrunner.q.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by roadrunner.q.local (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k96I24Zh069674; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:02:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uspoerlein@gmail.com) Received: (from q@localhost) by roadrunner.q.local (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) id k96I23Qq069673; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:02:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uspoerlein@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:02:02 +0200 From: Ulrich Spoerlein To: Nick Gustas Message-ID: <20061006180202.GB1406@roadrunner.q.local> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Gustas , cpghost , stable@freebsd.org References: <20061004185148.GA1848@roadrunner.q.local> <20061004185911.GA94703@epia2.farid-hajji.net> <20061004190611.GB1848@roadrunner.q.local> <45240D81.2080506@mail.txf.com> <20061004212417.GA95104@epia2.farid-hajji.net> <20061004213909.GC1848@roadrunner.q.local> <45243F7E.8050708@mail.txf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45243F7E.8050708@mail.txf.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, cpghost Subject: Re: ppp redial unsuccessful X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:05:31 -0000 Nick Gustas wrote: > Oct 4 19:03:09 xxxxxxx ppp[55]: tun0: Phase: bundle: Authenticate > Oct 4 19:03:09 xxxxxxx ppp[55]: tun0: Phase: deflink: his = PAP, mine = none > Oct 4 19:03:09 xxxxxxx ppp[55]: tun0: Phase: Pap Output: xxxxxxx@ameritech.net ******** > Oct 4 19:03:09 xxxxxxx ppp[55]: tun0: LCP: deflink: RecvCodeRej(127) state = Opened > Oct 4 19:03:11 xxxxxxx ppp[55]: tun0: Phase: Pap Input: SUCCESS () > > The real question is, is there's a way to work around your provider's brokenness without > killing the ppp process? Hi Nick, I cranked up the debug logging, and compared my ppp login attempts with your logfile. I get multiple Oct 6 18:29:43 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: deflink: RecvConfigReq(12) state = Initial Oct 6 18:29:43 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: IPADDR[6] 213.191.89.20 Oct 6 18:29:43 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: deflink: Oops, RCR in Initial. Oct 6 18:29:46 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: deflink: RecvConfigReq(13) state = Initial Oct 6 18:29:46 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: IPADDR[6] 213.191.89.20 Oct 6 18:29:46 coyote ppp[67945]: tun0: IPCP: deflink: Oops, RCR in Initial. Using "Google Search" then led me to the follow posts [1], that describe the problem in more detail. 'disable ipv6cp' should do the trick, I'll check this ASAP. Thanks for your pointer! [1] http://www.freebsd.de/archive/de-bsd-questions/de-bsd-questions.200506/0029.html http://tech.barwick.de/openbsd/deflink-oops-rcr-in-initial.html Ulrich Spoerlein -- A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? > >A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > >>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?