*BSD News Article 78624


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....