archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Mahan <>
Subject: Re: PPP cycling between UP and DOWN
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:54:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/28/20 6:59 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> On 2020-05-27 15:16, Patrick Mahan wrote:
>> I have a script that monitors by this by having a modified ip-up and
>> ip-down script write a value to a specific file under /var/run/pppd/ and
>> if it is ip-down, then I schedule a restart of pppd to occur once the
>> pppd image exits.  I have assumed that ip-down being triggered is and
>> indication that PPPoE connection is down and over.
> That's the most likely case.  It would help to have _complete_ debug
> logs showing what's happening.

I'm working on that, but I probably won't have them until tomorrow.

> (For what it's worth, another person posting to this list recently was
> having PPPoE problems that ended up tracking back to a bad Ethernet
> driver.  The driver allowed receive of unicast packets with someone
> else's address, and the PPPoE kernel code accepted a stray PADT that
> caused the link to go down.)  (PPPoE, as a protocol, is pretty nasty stuff.)

I am dis-inclined to lean in that direction.  These are standard Intel igb 
devices.  In over 5 years I have yet to have one issue tracked back directly to 
the ethernet driver.

>> But I am now seeing that this assumption could be incorrect.  I don't
>> claim to understand the entire protocol layers involved.  But is it
>> supported that a PPPoE connection can shift back from the IPCP layer to
>> the LCP layer?  Then back?
> IPCP can certainly be taken down without taking down LCP.  And LCP can
> be renegotiated (implicitly taking down IPCP as well) at any time.
> However, I've yet to find a commercial service provider that actually
> supports anything like this.  All of the systems they use are much more
> limited implementations.
> It sounds like a stretch to me.  A debug log would show for sure, though.

Yes, it seems like a stretch to me as well.  This code has been operating for 
almost 5 years with very little change.  This is the first case and it has only 
happened once.

>> Or is this a ppp protocol issue.  I see in the pppd code that we can
>> moved to a down state if we get a request to restart negotiations, so I
>> can see that my assumption may be incorrect.
> It can, as described above, but it's not something that's commonly (or
> "ever") implemented, at least in my experience.  Renegotiation almost
> always leads to complete teardown.  (Depending on the vendor, some will
> start doing LCP Protocol-Reject on the NCP protocols like IPCP if you
> attempt that.)
> This doesn't sound likely to me.  But, again, debug logs are your friend
> here.
> Use the pppd 'debug' option.  By itself, that'll write the log
> information to syslog daemon.debug (be sure to redirect that to a file).
>   Or use the "logfile /path/to/file" option to write the messages to a
> file.  Then post those logs.
> It's important to understand that PPP is just one protocol layer.  PPPoE
> itself is distinct, with its own messages and states.  The actions of
> PPPoE are seen by PPP as just underlying link up/down states -- very
> much like the signals PPP would get from a modem.

I am using rp-pppoe so I will look at their code to see if there might be an 
possible issue.

I am currently hoping this is an one off issue that won't return soon and I can, 
hopefully, wait until we are upgrade to a newer kernel and code.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-28 17:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-27 19:16 PPP cycling between UP and DOWN Patrick Mahan
2020-05-28 13:59 ` James Carlson
2020-05-28 17:54 ` Patrick Mahan [this message]
2020-06-08 17:04 ` Patrick Mahan
2020-06-08 17:15 ` James Carlson
2020-06-08 21:32 ` David Balažic
2020-06-08 22:51 ` Patrick Mahan
2020-06-08 22:52 ` Patrick Mahan
2020-06-09 18:03 ` James Carlson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).