Re: pppd:Inappropriate ioctl for device
Hi, it says above you cc'd this to Debian-User. I couldn't see it there,
but reply to the list anyway. Might be of use...
On Fre, 2004-02-06 at 19:07, Joshua_Giles@Dell.com wrote:
> I'm interested in the post you had to the list with the above subject...I am
> experiencing the same problem although it happens sporadically. Do you have
> a sure-fire way of reproducing this? Did you figure out this problem or
> have any more info?
The problem: pppd, while told to persist, gets some hickup and dies once
the connection is terminated by the peer. Sample syslog:
> Nov 20 05:26:20 zwerg pppoe[26980]: Session terminated -- received
PADT
from peer
> Nov 20 05:26:23 zwerg pppd[26979]: LCP terminated by peer
> Nov 20 05:26:24 zwerg pppd[26979]: ioctl(PPPIOCSASYNCMAP):
Inappropriate ioctl for device(25)
> Nov 20 05:26:24 zwerg pppd[26979]: tcflush failed: Input/output error
> Nov 20 05:26:24 zwerg pppd[26979]: Exit.
I had reports that a "holdoff" option for pppd would help for some
people, but have inconclusive results myself(1). Perhaps you should try
this first.
An old thread on debian-user-de was the best resource I could find
regarding the issue (2). In short, someone said you should use the
"roaring penguin" package. Another person, capable of reading the code,
pointed out that rp-ppoe would handle the issue in a brute force manner,
so you could just as well apply brute force yourself.
As for myself, I now have a cronjob running every minute:
test -e /var/run/ppp0.pid || pppd call dsl-provider
This is a brute-force workaround; it also has the side effect of
cluttering my syslog. but it works.
(1) The "holdoff" option, telling pppd to wait a little before
attempting the reconnect, was a sucess for me -- at first. However,
after a power outage my DSL-modem failed to come back to life. After
replacing it with a seemingly identical device, the problem was back.
(2) "PPPoE und T-Offline",
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/2002/debian-user-german-200207/msg00009.html
cu,
Schnobs
Reply to: