archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Mahan <>
Subject: Re: PPP cycling between UP and DOWN
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:04:41 +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.
> (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.)
>> 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.
>> 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 finally obtained the PPPoE logs from my customer.  I have redacted the IP 
addresses.  This is where I think we get the UP-->DOWN-->UP that is causing my 
issue.  Oddly, the customer has not experienced another event of this nature 
since then.

Here is the log with my annotations:

Executing pppd w/plugin(/etc/ppp/plugins/ '/usr/sbin/pppd plugin 
/etc/ppp/plugins/ nic-wan0  unit 0 noipdefault noauth default-asyncmap 
defaultroute hide-password nodetach  mtu 1492 mru 1492 noaccomp nodeflate nopcomp 
novj novjccomp user lcp-echo-interval 20 lcp-echo-failure 3 '
PPPd pid is 15175
Plugin /etc/ppp/plugins/ loaded.
RP-PPPoE plugin version 3.12 compiled against pppd 2.4.7
Connected to 00:12:e2:c0:0e:94 via interface wan0
Using interface ppp0
Connect: ppp0 <--> wan0
CHAP authentication succeeded
CHAP authentication succeeded
peer from calling number 00:12:E2:C0:0E:94 authorized
kernel does not support PPP filtering
sifdefaultroute(unit=0, ouraddr=XX.XX.XX.XX, gateway=YY.YY.YY.YY)
local  IP address XX.XX.XX.XX
remote IP address YY.YY.YY.YY

NOTE: This is where the first ip-up callout was triggered.

Connect time 0.1 minutes.
Sent 0 bytes, received 10 bytes.

NOTE: This is where I think the ip-down callout was triggered.

sifdefaultroute(unit=0, ouraddr=XX.XX.XX.XX, gateway=YY.YY.YY.YY)
local  IP address XX.XX.XX.XX
remote IP address YY.YY.YY.YY

NOTE: This is where I think the second ip-up callout was triggered.

Modem hangup
Connect time 1629.1 minutes.
Sent 572 bytes, received 452067 bytes.
Connection terminated.
PPPoE shutdown on interface 'ppp0', exit status is '16'



  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-06-08 17:04 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
2020-06-08 17:04 ` Patrick Mahan [this message]
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).