Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Damian Gerow <freebsd@coal.sentex.ca> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, brian@awfulhak.org Subject: Re: Native PPPoE broken (4.6-STABLE), RP-PPPoE working?! Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206231843510.44896-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200206232309.g5NN9asS001943@coal.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Damian Gerow wrote: > I've been working with Mike Tancsa for the past little while, > trying to figure out why the new concentrators that are being > deployed in Canada are causing problems with some (notably > the FreeBSD) PPPoE implementations -- the end result being > horribly slow to nonexistant speeds. > > After spending a couple of hours getting it to compile, I > got Roaring Penguin (latest release) and pppd-3.11 compiled > and installed on my 4.6-STABLE (June 17) box, and connected > it just fine. Speeds are exactly as expected, and there's > *no* slowness at all. define "slowness"? Does RP attach to 'ppp' or does it supply it's own? > > So it appears that the in-kernel PPPoE implementation is > broken, and Roaring Pengiun's is working? (Or that the > new concentrator is breaking from the spec, and causing > problems with the in-kernel implementation...) This is my guess, I've seen this before.. some manufacturers asssume that if it works with W95 they can stop testing and often thay make assumptions about the parts of the spec that they shouldn't.... for example, I send a 32 bit integer as the binary 'cookie' but some assume it must be ascii becasue that's what some Microsoft implememtation used. The spec just specifies N unique bytes. > > - Damian > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0206231843510.44896-100000>