From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:12:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:12:04 -0400 Received: from www.microgate.com ([216.30.46.105]:22542 "EHLO sol.microgate.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:11:54 -0400 Message-ID: <00bf01c0e2d9$de15b8c0$0c00a8c0@diemos> From: "Paul Fulghum" To: , Cc: In-Reply-To: <200105221334.f4MDYsc22597@xyzzy.clara.co.uk> Subject: Re: SyncPPP IPCP/LCP loop problem and patch Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:11:31 -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 > > Seems to me that when you get the conf-request in opened state, you > > should send your conf-request before sending the conf-ack to the > > peer's conf-request. I think this would short-circuit the loop (I > > could be wrong though, it's getting late). > > Thanks but I've already tried that. You get a slightly different pattern > to the loop but it still loops. What does the loop look like when the cfg-req is sent 1st? Paul Fulghum paulkf@microgate.com Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com