I'm debating about upgrading to 2.4.3 on the remote end but I looked in the ChangeLog that comes with the source and see nothing about this. I assumed that if it was a bug it was not fixed due to it not being listed in the changeLog.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:58, Clifford Kite wrote: > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Christopher Fowler wrote: > > |I have two hosts that are configured to dial each other on demand. > | > |One host is setup as 10.0.6.1:10.0.6.2 and the other as > |192.168.5.6:192.168.5.7. When the 10.0.6.1 sends the IPCP ConfReq > |packet to request the remote accept the config of 10.0.6.1:10.0.6.2 it > |is promptly rejected by the 192.168.5.6 machine. This is totally > |understandable since I did not provide the command line options > |ipcp-allow-remote and ipcp-allow-local. My problem is that when this > |happens the ppp proces on 192.168.5.6 never terminates the connection. > |I get a stream of the folloing messages in syslog: > | > |Mar 7 22:14:23 dialup pppd[130]: rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x52 <addrs > |10.0.6.1 10.0.6.2>] > |Mar 7 22:14:23 dialup pppd[130]: sent [IPCP ConfRej id=0x52 <addrs > |10.0.6.1 10.0.6.2>] > > <snip> > > |Mar 7 22:14:26 dialup pppd[130]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x10] > |Mar 7 22:14:26 dialup pppd[130]: rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x6d <addrs > |10.0.6.1 10.0.6.2>] > |Mar 7 22:14:26 dialup pppd[130]: sent [IPCP ConfRej id=0x6d <addrs > |10.0.6.1 10.0.6.2>] > | > | > |And it goes on forever and ever. Should'nt there be a point where no > |IPCP address could be negotiated and the remote terminate the > |connection? > > First I'm not an expert, but this looks like the old-style IP addresses > negotiation. That is, pppd fell back to this after failing to complete > IPCP with the normal IP address option. > > Termination would seem to me to be appropriate after either side > sends an IPCP request without any IP addresses that the other side > accepts. > > |Could this be version related? The version that is on the remote is > |2.4.1 and the version on local (10.0.6.1) is 2.4.2. > > Neither version is doing what I would consider as the Right Thing. > But, since 2.4.1 apparently doesn't accept the empty IPCP request > *finally* sent by 2.4.2 (near the end above), the 2.4.1 version > appears to be the worst offender. > > --- > Clifford Kite http://ckite.no-ip.net > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
