Re: pppd disconnects after authenticating
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Paul Miller wrote:
> (I'm dialing from a win95 machine to my Linux box)
>
> Immediately after I authenticate (using PAP), pppd disconnects me and
> windows just says to try connecting again... I looked through all the logs
> for any kind of error or warning, but i didn't find anything -- even with
> debug on. The last pppd line contains the correct login name and
> password. Why is pppd disconnecting me?
First, who is authenticating who? It's quite likely that the linux box
is trying to get W95 to authenticate it. I have no idea how you would deal
with that at the W95 end.
Are you using mgetty to answer the call. I think it may have a default
setting of +pap on the /AutoPPP/ line in /etc/mgetty/login.config which
you might need to override with -pap or nothing.
Lastly, pppd is rather matter of fact in its log files. It isn't an
"error" when authentication fails; it's the Right Thing. So rather you
should look for LCP packets with ConfRej in them. Here's an example
from an old email I sent a while ago to someone else.
Mar 26 19:10:43 sparky pppd[524]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <mru 1500>
<asyncmap0x0> <magic 0x4961386f> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Mar 26 19:10:43 sparky pppd[524]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <mru 1500>
<asyncmap0x0> <auth pap> <magic 0xb9312c88> <pcomp> <accomp>]
^^^^^^^^ it wants you to authenticate with pap
Mar 26 19:10:43 sparky pppd[524]: sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 <auth pap>]
you refused ^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Mar 26 19:10:46 sparky pppd[524]: rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x3]
Mar 26 19:10:46 sparky pppd[524]: LCP terminated at peer's request
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: