Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!iafrica.com!uct.ac.za!quagga.ru.ac.za!howland.erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk (Brian Somers) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: PPP LCP responsibilities Date: 18 Sep 1996 22:59:36 +0100 Organization: Coverform Ltd. Lines: 30 Message-ID: <51prc8$fc@anorak.coverform.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.coverform.lan Summary: Configure-Request responsibility Keywords: Configure-Request LCP PPP X-NNTP-Posting-Host: awfulhak.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Perhaps some kind soul with an understanding of PPP negotiation can answer the following question: It's bugged me for some time. In rfc1661 (the ppp rfc), mention is made of Configure-Request LCP packets, but no mention is made of which side is responsible for sending them after program initialisation. Iijppp sends the Configure-Request LCP if it is the passive side (-direct or -dedicated), but not if it is the active side. This makes sense as the receiving end of a connection will normally have a longer setup time. Consider it the other way around: I send login, password (for a dialup) then send a Configure-Request. Meanwhile, the receiving side's login program looks up the password file and runs its ppp program. If the receiving ppp program does any dumb terminal things, it may flush the input queue and lose the LCP packet. It makes sense for the receiver to do the Configure-Request. Anyway, my question is: Is there a "correct" way ? I would have thought that there should be a "responsibility", but can't find it in the rfc. Please could someone tell me if they know. I'm sure that iijppp is correct, but my ISP is not only telling me that I'm lying about them recently changing this part of the negotiation, but is also saying that iijppp is incorrect ! It's definitely wrong if both sides DON'T initiate ! Thanks for *any* answers. -- Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....