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>