Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:35:58 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ppp(8) v. 3.1 : PPPoE lqr problem. Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031124112952.05c286d8@209.112.4.2> In-Reply-To: <200311241725.19516.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <3D98E439.1010400@pydo.org> <200311241659.49594.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <6.0.1.1.0.20031124110621.0698a788@209.112.4.2> <200311241725.19516.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:25 AM 24/11/2003, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > And for
> > sure its an ERX on the other end ?
>
>Actually it's an NRP - it seems Cisco does a better job with their PPPoE
>implementation.
OK, thanks. The problem I see is only against an ERX. So either
misconfigured ERX or something about Juniper's implementation. As the
original poster was connecting against Frace Telecom and I to Bell Canada
and given that VJ Header compression also does not play well with FreeBSD's
I am leaning to the ERX.
Back to the original question of how best to work around this. I will be
deploying close to 100 boxes, most of which will talk to an ERX. It would
be nice if I could avoid having to manually patch the boxes each time I do
an update. If I work with my programmers here to come up with a patch, is
there even a chance that someone would commit it to HEAD and then MFC it
back to RELENG_4? Who is looking after PPP these days anyways ?
---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.0.20031124112952.05c286d8>