From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:56:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:56:37 -0400 Received: from www.microgate.com ([216.30.46.105]:29969 "EHLO sol.microgate.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:56:32 -0400 Message-ID: <003b01c0e472$6f7a3ae0$0c00a8c0@diemos> From: "Paul Fulghum" To: Cc: In-Reply-To: <200105241530.f4OFUdw27786@xyzzy.clara.co.uk> Subject: Re: SyncPPP IPCP/LCP loop problem and patch Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: > Linux syncppp does not have a LCP_STATE_REQ_SENT ... [snip] > Who's the owner for syncppp.c ? I might be able to put some time in on > it, but would hate to be sending patches into empty space. I'm not sure anyone is willing to claim ownership :) I did not realize that syncppp does not implement all the RFC1661 states. That's simply broken :( A proper state machine implementation would be nice. On the other hand, it works in a minimal way for most people and it's supposed to be folded into the generic PPP implementation someday. So there's not much point in trying to overhaul the code. Paul Fulghum paulkf@microgate.com Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com