From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 05:29:07 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 151E116A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60F843D39 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:29:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nil000@cse.unsw.edu.au) Received: from nn.lam.net.au (ppp193-121.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.193.121])i0JDT0qR069877; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:59:01 +1030 (CST) Received: from cse.unsw.edu.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nn.lam.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C163A15FFF8; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:28:46 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <400BDB8D.4070807@cse.unsw.edu.au> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:28:45 +1100 From: nil000@cse.unsw.edu.au User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031020 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: niranjan@monsoonrain.net References: <4009C0D5.2070209@cse.unsw.edu.au> <1074451944.400ad5e888ba4@www.monsoonrain.net> In-Reply-To: <1074451944.400ad5e888ba4@www.monsoonrain.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:29:07 -0000 niranjan@monsoonrain.net wrote: [ ... ] > >>Short of actually fixing this LQR negotiation issue (?), might the >>suggestion of a ppp.conf option to force LCP echo usage be good? >> > > > Yes. I am surprized it doesn't already have that option since thats > a more common scenario. Alternately you could use another pppoe > implementation, perhaps the one based on pppd/netgraph. > > BTW, the lcp.c patch suggested by someone else is not the correct > approach. > > There also seems to be a problem with the way the FreeBSD kernel PPP > implementation handles LQR and you can see it in the log below. (The > unisphere at the other end isn't perfect either and has its own > issues!) > > regards, > niranjan > 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