From owner-freebsd-net Thu Oct 26 16:49:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC49B37B479; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18460; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhmail.mh.lucent.com (h135-3-115-8.lucent.com [135.3.115.8]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18445; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lucent.com (positron.micro.lucent.com [192.19.56.129]) by mhmail.mh.lucent.com (8.8.8+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id TAA24990; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39F8C29F.D785C588@lucent.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:47:43 -0400 From: "Gary T. Corcoran" Reply-To: gcorcoran@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Microelectronics - Client Access Broadband Systems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Hill Cc: julian@elischer.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More on PPPoE & ADSL (Telstra Bigpond) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Aaron Hill wrote: > > >The provider treats these differently > >we probably need to reverse the order of the Host_uniq and Service > >name fields.. > > It does look like that hence my searching through the source code to check > if I could make a simple hack to test it. I ran out of time though. > > I've been reading the RFC (2516) lately which says (I quote)... > > The PADI packet MUST contain exactly one TAG of TAG_TYPE > Service-Name, indicating the service the Host is requesting, and any number > of other TAG types. > > ... so from the order of that statement it seems putting the Service-Name > tag first is the correct thing to do. [Quick background: I implemented PPPoE in our DSL drivers for the Lucent DSL adapters] Yes, the only tag REQUIRED in the PADI is a Service-Name tag, which has to match what the service provide wants, and may possibly be of zero length. > The RFC doesn't explicitly mention > what order the tags should be in. It's entirely plausible that the ISPs > equipment has a requirement (bug?) that the service name comes last. It could be. Do you know what brand of head-end equipment you're trying to communicate with? In any event, since only a Service-Name is required, if you send ONLY a Service-Name, then it will meet the bugs (requirements) of head-ends that might require it to be first _or_ last. In other words, why send the Host-Uniq at all - unless you have a specific need for it? In my drivers, I only send Service-Name in the PADI... (but we haven't tested in Australia... :-) Gary -- ========================================================= Gary Corcoran - Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Lucent Microelectronics - Client Access Broadband Systems Communications Protocol & Driver Development Group "We make the drivers that make communications work" Email: gcorcoran@lucent.com --------------------------------------------------------- "No brain, no service." ========================================================= To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message