Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:08:42 +0800 (HKT) From: John Beukema <john@gateway.net.hk> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: Tom Greenwalt <tomg@fourthgen.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Yet another PPP question Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960117220633.9082A-100000@gateway.net.hk> In-Reply-To: <199601170511.WAA07206@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is not this CHAP and PAP which are pretty standard even if not in the RFC? I think it is hard to pretend MS is not there. jbeukema On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > > When users dialin and connect using the Windows 95 PPP client I see the > > following messages: > > > > Jan 16 20:38:22 fourthgen pppd[2916]: pppd 2.1.2 started by tomg, uid 1000 > > Jan 16 20:38:22 fourthgen pppd[2916]: Connect: ppp1 <--> /dev/ttyd3 > > Jan 16 20:38:25 fourthgen pppd[2916]: input: Unknown protocol (802b) received! > > Jan 16 20:38:25 fourthgen pppd[2916]: input: Unknown protocol (803f) received! > > Thank M$ for this. Basically, Microsoft asked for some extensions to > the PPP protocol which were denied by the IETF for valid reasons. (The > extensions didn't belong at that lawyer and should have been part of a > separate protocol). Rather than being a good net-citizen, they ignored > the results and implemented them anyway. > > So, M$ TCP/IP stacks are trying to negotiate non-existant features using > an invalid protocol which only works with their own product. > > The solution? Yell and scream to M$ and tell them to use standard > protocol and quit using useless proprietary extensions. If they want to > use proprietary extensions, have them put inside other proprietary code. > > > > Nate >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSD/.3.91.960117220633.9082A-100000>