Executive summary: KPPP is to blame, pon does not have the behaviour I described. Details: I knew older Debian's used to work, so I got out my old Potato CDs to see if this really was a problem with bad hardware disliking the Linux IP stack. My theory was that if it was bad hardware Potato would do the same weird things with file uploads. I always used KPPP to dialup. I like to have the docked icon and throughput graph available. Of-course, my Potato CDs didn't come with KDE, so I went the way of the console, using pppconfig/pon/poff and cftp. They worked fine and all test uploads went smoothly, just as you would expect. No weird stalling of uploads that I had experienced, or that you would expect if there was bad hardware in the way. That made me wonder what was different. It was KPPP. So I boot up Sid and try dialling by pon. Sure enough, uploads now worked flawlessly. (And I was able to commit a whole bunch of stuff that had been waiting for a month.) I hangup and try again in KPPP, and lo and behold uploads stall at 40K, just as it had been doing before. So there you go - something is very wrong with my KPPP config (or KPPP itself). I'm not in a hurry to fix it now that I have a workaround, but any ideas are welcome. I'll post config files on demand. ;-) Peace, Brendon PS: I'm subscribed, no more CC for me. You wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Brendon Higgins wrote: > > I'd remember, but I don't remember doing anything regarding that > > particular acronym. At least, not manually. > > A new kernel could have it enabled by default, or something... > > > Well, my computer can talk to any other, to a degree. For some reason > > larger > > I mean through a router. It certainly is having trouble. > > > data just fine, but seems to have trouble sending it. Mind you, this only > > happens to individual streams, and it does not happen in Win98, which is > > why I suspect something in my Debian install is broken. Does the Linux > > TCP/IP implementation really differ that much from Windows that a problem > > like this is possible to exist in one but not the other? > > Yes. Linux TCP/IP is to Win98 TCP/IP what a P4 is to an original 80386SX. > > And there are a huge lot of completely buggy TCP/IP routers and firewalls > out there, that fail to work right as soon as something that was not being > done before is used. Never mind TCP/IP is forward-compatible, when > implemented correctly. > > Usually, it is Linux and the BSDs that hit those buggy routers first, since > the Windows TCP/IP stack is something of the stone age that can barely talk > to others. When you only use the 5 most common words in a language, it > gets difficult to find others that won't understand you... But don't ask > it to do anything too dificult.
Attachment:
pgpCEot1shICh.pgp
Description: PGP signature