[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

diald + pppd with isdncapi plugin



hi folks,

i honestly knelt down and praised the lords of debian when i found
that debian woody pppd and the isdncapi plugin just worked. getting an
isdn connection to a provider via ppp was a no-configuration thing of
two minutes. DEBIAN ROCKS!

anyway, now i am trying to get diald to work with that setup.
here are the relevant ppp files:

/etc/ppp/peers/provider:
  sync
  noauth
  -chap
  user XXXXXXXXXX
  plugin userpass.so
  password XXXXXXXXXX
  plugin capiplugin.so
  defaultroute
  number XXXXXXXXXXX
  protocol hdlc
  /dev/null

aston# grep "^[^#]" /etc/ppp/options
asyncmap 0
auth
lock
hide-password
lcp-echo-interval 30
lcp-echo-failure 4
noipx
crtscts
modem


with these, i just `pon` and get a connection.

now i set up diald. but when i give it an 'up' request, the logs
report:

diald[11789]: FIFO: link up request
diald[11789]: new state CONNECT action 0x8051200 timeout 90
diald[11789]: Calling site 192.168.0.2 
diald[11789]: failed to set modem to controlling tty: Inappropriate
  ioctl for device
diald[11789]: Diald is dying with code 1
diald[11789]: Closing /dev/null


"failed to set modem to controlling tty: Inappropriate ioctl for device"

and it doesn't matter whether i leave 'crtscts', 'lock', and 'modem'
out of the ppp options file, and 'defaultroute' out of the provider
file, i just keep getting this error.

so i tried setting 'mode dev' in diald.defaults and then specifying
pon/poff as connect/disconnect scripts. here's what that gives (yes, these are
random PIDs)

 diald[30857]: FIFO: link up request
 diald[30857]: Calling site 192.168.0.2 
 pppd[6998]: Plugin userpass.so loaded.
 pppd[6998]: userpass: $Revision: 1.3 $
 pppd[6998]: Plugin capiplugin.so loaded.
 pppd[6998]: capiplugin: $Revision: 1.22 $
 pppd[6998]: capiconn:  1.5 
 diald[30857]: connector: Plugin userpass.so loaded.
 diald[30857]: connector: userpass: $Revision: 1.3 $
 diald[30857]: connector: Plugin capiplugin.so loaded.
 diald[30857]: connector: capiplugin: $Revision: 1.22 $
 diald[30857]: connector: capiconn:  1.5 
 diald[30857]: Connected to site 192.168.0.2 
 diald[30857]: Open device /dev/null
 kernel: kcapi: appl 1 up
 pppd[17687]: pppd 2.4.1 started by root, uid 0
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: phase serialconn.
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: dialing XXXXXXXXXXXX (hdlc)
 ** -->
 diald[30857]: Disconnected. Call duration 0 seconds. 
 diald[30857]: IP transmitted 0 bytes and received 0 bytes. 
 diald[30857]: Delaying 30 seconds before clear to dial.
 pppd[17687]: Terminating on signal 15.
 kernel: kcapi: appl 1 ncci 0x10101 up
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: connected: "" -> "XXXXXXXXXXXX" outgoing
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: using /dev/capi/0: "" -> "XXXXXXXXXXXX" outgoing
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: "" -> "XXXXXXXXXXXX" outgoing: charge in units: 1
 pppd[17687]: Using interface ppp0
 pppd[17687]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/capi/0
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: phase establish (was serialconn).
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: phase terminate (was establish).
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: phase dead (was terminate).
 pppd[17687]: Hangup (SIGHUP)
 kernel: kcapi: appl 1 ncci 0x10101 down
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: "" -> "XXXXXXXXXXXX" outgoing: charge in units: 1
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: disconnect(local): "" -> "XXXXXXXXXXXX" outgoing 
  0x3400 (0x0000) - No additional information
 pppd[17687]: Connection terminated.
 pppd[17687]: tcflush failed: Input/output error
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: phase disconnect (was dead).
 pppd[17687]: capiplugin: exit
 pppd[17687]: Exit.
 kernel: kcapi: appl 1 down

i wonder why diald disconnects and kills pppd at the spot marked by
"**".

anyway, i'd really appreciate any tips, or maybe some direct help on
getting diald to work with isdn.

thanks.

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
  
work like you don't need the money
love like you have never been hurt
dance like there's nobody watching

Attachment: pgpAbPNIxM6OQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: