diff options
author | brian <brian@cvs.openbsd.org> | 1999-03-01 02:52:20 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | brian <brian@cvs.openbsd.org> | 1999-03-01 02:52:20 +0000 |
commit | 4d11982269c313ad2a1023a73edbbc03a8984820 (patch) | |
tree | c6c70134617638b17058f4482e19c29cb2e8434a /usr.sbin/ppp | |
parent | e735ae299c96d42d5318f16557e40836434b4940 (diff) |
Comment why we do a TLF when we get a ``Down'' event in state
``closing''.
Pointed out by: archie
Don't do a TLF when we get a ``Catastrphic Protocol Reject'' event
in state ``closed'' or ``stopped''.
Pointed out but not suggested by: archie
This makes no difference in the current implementation as
LcpLayerFinish() does nothing but log the event, but I disagree
in principle because it unbalances the TLF/TLS calls which
(IMHO) doesn't fit with the intentions of the RFC.
Maybe the RFC author had a reason for this. It can only happen
in two circumstances:
- if LCP has already been negotiated then stopped or closed and we
receive a protocol reject, then we must already have done a TLF.
Why do one again and stay in the same state ?
- if LCP hasn't yet been started and we receive an unsolicted
protocol reject, why should we TLF when we haven't done a TLS ?
Diffstat (limited to 'usr.sbin/ppp')
-rw-r--r-- | usr.sbin/ppp/ppp/fsm.c | 9 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/usr.sbin/ppp/ppp/fsm.c b/usr.sbin/ppp/ppp/fsm.c index 35f16f36807..5df2fb146e5 100644 --- a/usr.sbin/ppp/ppp/fsm.c +++ b/usr.sbin/ppp/ppp/fsm.c @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * - * $Id: fsm.c,v 1.4 1999/02/26 21:28:22 brian Exp $ + * $Id: fsm.c,v 1.5 1999/03/01 02:52:19 brian Exp $ * * TODO: */ @@ -302,6 +302,7 @@ fsm_Down(struct fsm *fp) NewState(fp, ST_INITIAL); break; case ST_CLOSING: + /* This TLF contradicts the RFC (1661), which ``misses it out'' ! */ (*fp->fn->LayerFinish)(fp); NewState(fp, ST_INITIAL); (*fp->parent->LayerFinish)(fp->parent->object, fp); @@ -841,7 +842,8 @@ FsmRecvProtoRej(struct fsm *fp, struct fsmheader *lhp, struct mbuf *bp) case PROTO_CCP: if (fp->proto == PROTO_LCP) { fp = &fp->link->ccp.fsm; - (*fp->fn->LayerFinish)(fp); + /* Despite the RFC (1661), don't do an out-of-place TLF */ + /* (*fp->fn->LayerFinish)(fp); */ switch (fp->state) { case ST_CLOSED: case ST_CLOSING: @@ -850,7 +852,8 @@ FsmRecvProtoRej(struct fsm *fp, struct fsmheader *lhp, struct mbuf *bp) NewState(fp, ST_STOPPED); break; } - (*fp->parent->LayerFinish)(fp->parent->object, fp); + /* See above */ + /* (*fp->parent->LayerFinish)(fp->parent->object, fp); */ } break; case PROTO_MP: |