From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 18:38:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C46A16A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from server34.totalchoicehosting.com (server34.totalchoicehosting.com [69.50.194.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29FB43D5E for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:38:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from niranjan@monsoonrain.net) Received: from cpanel by server34.totalchoicehosting.com with local (Exim 4.24) id 1AilmL-0004Tn-3J; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:38:09 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.monsoonrain.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:38:08 -0500 Message-ID: <1074566288.400c9490e7f04@www.monsoonrain.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:38:08 -0500 From: niranjan@monsoonrain.net To: nil000@cse.unsw.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server34.totalchoicehosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [32001 32001] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - monsoonrain.net cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPPoE problem: "Too many LQR packets lost" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:38:17 -0000 nil000@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote: > > Thanks for your analysis Niranjan. Could you please elaborate on what > you meant about the lcp.c patch not being the correct approach? I think > Mike has tested it in multiple situations, and it has worked well for a > guy in the same situation down here too. > > cheers, > > nik > Hi Nik, The comment was from the perspective of a long term cleanup of the LQM code. For instance, lqr.c currently assumes that you can either enable LQR or LCP echoes, but not both at the same time. The RFCs, however, do not disallow this scenario and LCP echoes have other uses beyond link quality monitoring. If Mike's patch offers a short term solution for your needs, go for it! (Although, I am wondering, how it would be different, if you simply did not enable LQR in ppp.conf. lqr_Setup() in lqr.c sets LQM_ECHO by default. If LQM_LQR is not set, the code will fall back to sending LCP echoes.. see SendLqrReport()...I haven't looked at this version of PPP in the greatest detail, so its possible there is a clause somewhere preventing this...) Regards, Niranjan