Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:26:28 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPPoE buglet... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0403171723590.78814@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0403170908380.72230-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0403170908380.72230-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, David Malone wrote: > > > I spent a while trying to get PPPoE going through a Netopia smart > > modem last night. To cut a long story short, the values for > > PTT_RELAY_SID in src/sys/netgraph/ng_pppoe.h are wrong (at least > > when compared with tcpdump, linux and the RFC). We have: > > > > #if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN > > #define PTT_RELAY_SID (0x0106) > > #else > > #define PTT_RELAY_SID (0x0601) > > #endif > > > > but we should have: > > > > #if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN > > #define PTT_RELAY_SID (0x0110) > > #else > > #define PTT_RELAY_SID (0x1001) > > #endif > > > > Anyone object to my fixing it? The only thing I can think of that > > it might break would be people using ng_pppoe as a PPPoE relay with > > only ng_pppoe PPPoE clients. > > The RFC is al that matters (except for > the compatibility code for idiot suppliers that use the wrong > ethertype.) > > Is there a 110 or 1001 nearby that I may have read in error in the spec? 0x0110 Relay-Session-Id I think you might just have incremented the number as the paragraphs before go 0x0101, 0x0102, 0x0103, 0x0104, 0x0105, 0x010610 *uups* ;-) PS: and please no TOFU. -- Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT 56 69 73 69 74 http://www.zabbadoz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0403171723590.78814>