Hi,
> This change can be made; the unbinding behavior can be removed and SID 0
> can be made valid. I hope I was clear in my previous e-mail that I
> didn't object to this.
Not quite. But now I think I got it ;-)
> PPPoE connections are unstable. Ethernet frames get dropped. Things
> die rando
This change can be made; the unbinding behavior can be removed and SID 0
can be made valid. I hope I was clear in my previous e-mail that I
didn't object to this.
PPPoE connections are unstable. Ethernet frames get dropped. Things
die randomly. And yes, you typically want to have a cron job or s
Hi,
> In the current code SID 0 indicates that the socket is to be un-bound.
That are the semantics used by the kernel code, yes - but even pppd uses
different semantics (which can't quite work, of course ...).
> Supporting unbinding of the socket was intended to permit the PPPoE
> session to b
Hi,
> >>From the RFC:
>
> 5.4 The PPPoE Active Discovery Session-confirmation (PADS) packet
>
>When the Access Concentrator receives a PADR packet, it prepares to
>begin a PPP session. It generates a unique SESSION_ID for the PPPoE
>session and replies to the Host with a PADS packet
>From the RFC:
5.4 The PPPoE Active Discovery Session-confirmation (PADS) packet
When the Access Concentrator receives a PADR packet, it prepares to
begin a PPP session. It generates a unique SESSION_ID for the PPPoE
session and replies to the Host with a PADS packet. The
DESTINATIO
From: Florian Zumbiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:30:00 +0100
> I noticed that the PPPoE code doesn't allow session id 0x to be used
> for an actual session but rather considers 0 a special value denoting
> that the socket is unbound. Now, when reading RFC 2516, I couldn't re
