This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: PPP fix for Sprint wireless network
- From: Gary Thomas <gary at mlbassoc dot com>
- To: Matt Jerdonek <maj1224 at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn dot ch>,Patches eCos <ecos-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:57:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: PPP fix for Sprint wireless network
- Organization: MLB Associates
- References: <20050114152950.10690.qmail@web14201.mail.yahoo.com>
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 07:29 -0800, Matt Jerdonek wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> No, I hadn't seen that patch before. Thanks for
> pointing it out to me.
>
> The eCos PPP code is correct as it is today as I
> interpret RFC 1662. The Sprint network is definitely
> where the problem is. However, I didn't pursue
> getting Sprint to fix the bug, because I didn't think
> I'd be able to get a timely resolution.
>
> When I was investigating this issue, I found that MS
> Windows PCs are able to connect into Sprint without an
> issue. After analyzing the traces, I found that
> Windows always sends the leading flag while eCos does
> not. After changing eCos, I was able to connect.
>
> I don't think we'd introduce any issues by sending
> back-to-back flags. According to RFC 1662:
> "Two consecutive Flag Sequences constitute an empty
> frame, which is silently discarded, and not counted as
> an FCS error." (Section 3.1)
>
> In any case, I won't be upset if you choose to not
> commit this patch. I was just trying to save someone
> else the time it took me to figure this out.
I would think it acceptable to have this behaviour if the
patch included some CDL to enable it (and it was off by default)
>
> -- Matt
>
> --- Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matt
> >
> > Have you seen:
> >
> >
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-patches/2004-06/msg00029.html
> >
> > A patch similar to your has been rejected before.
> > Before accepting
> > this i would like an greater understanding what is
> > going on. Is sprint
> > deliberately breaking the RFC, is it just a bug in
> > Sprint's
> > implementation? Or has there been a newer RFC which
> > makes this flag a
> > requirement?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Andrew
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas |
MLB Associates | Consulting for the
+1 (970) 352-4947 | Embedded world
http://www.mlbassoc.com/ |
email: <gary@mlbassoc.com> |
gpg: http://www.chez-thomas.org/gary/gpg_key.asc
------------------------------------------------------------