Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)
From:      Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org>
To:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp fsm.c
Message-ID:  <199903010252.SAA58789@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
brian       1999/02/28 18:52:39 PST

  Modified files:
    usr.sbin/ppp         fsm.c 
  Log:
  Comment why we do a TLF when we get a ``Down'' event in state
  ``closing''.
  
  Pointed out by: archie
  
  Don't do a TLF when we get a ``Catastrphic Protocol Reject'' event
  in state ``closed'' or ``stopped''.
  
  Pointed out but not suggested by: archie
  
  This makes no difference in the current implementation as
  LcpLayerFinish() does nothing but log the event, but I disagree
  in principle because it unbalances the TLF/TLS calls which
  (IMHO) doesn't fit with the intentions of the RFC.
  
  Maybe the RFC author had a reason for this.  It can only happen
  in two circumstances:
  
  - if LCP has already been negotiated then stopped or closed and we
    receive a protocol reject, then we must already have done a TLF.
    Why do one again and stay in the same state ?
  
  - if LCP hasn't yet been started and we receive an unsolicted
    protocol reject, why should we TLF when we haven't done a TLS ?
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.40      +6 -3      src/usr.sbin/ppp/fsm.c


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903010252.SAA58789>