Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:01:00 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPPoE problem: "Too many LQR packets lost" Message-ID: <2vmch0phgtf3028ie4447h2hruq7vdi7ac@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <4105D6A9.5020600@elischer.org> References: <200407240247.i6O2lQfJ007370@dungeon.home> <tjk5g09beet8bl73iimtgg3krflcj1rq3r@4ax.com> <200407250144.i6P1iCPx005756@dungeon.home> <41032C09.506@elischer.org> <0pfbg01araih3qekvbse5afdshf2tjf2qr@4ax.com> <4105D6A9.5020600@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:14:33 -0700, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote: >Mike Tancsa wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:42:01 -0700, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you >>wrote: >> =20 >> >>>>>Seriously though, mine was a very ugly hack to >>>>>get things working again for me. Most of the DSL aggregators here >>>>>are Juniper ERXes which do not play nice with FreeBSD's PPPoE. >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>any thoughts as to why? >>> >>>FreeBSD's pppoe is going through a little development at the moment.. >>>Now would be a good time to get it fixed.. >>Hi, >>Simple LCP echos work just fine, but when using LQR things "break". >>There are debug logs posted in the archives when I first figured out >>what was broken. If you need another copy I am happy to post again. >> > >certainly it would be useful. rather than taking potsots at the archive=20 >hoping to catch it.. > >pppoe is tricky because the responsibility for errors os split between=20 >the pppoe module > and the ppp module.. Just to followup for the archives sake, the latest LQR changes do not fix the ppp/PPPoE problem with respect to the issue below. I have a full TCPDUMP as well as ppp debug logs that illustrate the problem for anyone interested.=20 ---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2vmch0phgtf3028ie4447h2hruq7vdi7ac>