From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Ostrowski Subject: Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:56:45 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1056581805.27267.14.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> References: <20030625072602.529AF2C0B9@lists.samba.org> <1056547262.1945.1436.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> <1056548544.1944.1488.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> <20030625114243.F84526@shell.cyberus.ca> <1056562079.1944.1961.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> <16122.8066.928895.202985@nanango.paulus.ozlabs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jamal Hadi , Rusty Russell , "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com, carlson@workingcode.com Return-path: To: Paul MacKerras In-Reply-To: <16122.8066.928895.202985@nanango.paulus.ozlabs.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 18:17, Paul Mackerras wrote: > James might be able to comment better than me on what will happen if > packets get reordered during the negotiation phase of a PPP > connection. I think the worst is that some packets will have to be > retransmitted and thus the negotiation will take several seconds > longer than it needs to. This is exactly what we're dealing with the current "bug"; the worst case effect is a delay. I don't think heroic measures are called for the sake of this PPPoE issue alone. -- Michal Ostrowski