Re: Strange PPPoe problem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:49:56 -0500
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 07:55, Jacob S wrote:
> > <snip>
> >So then I added the line
> >pty "/usr/sbin/pppoe -I eth0 -T 80 -m 1464"
> >to /etc/ppp/peers/dsl-provider, but the problem continued. After
> >commenting that line back out (so that no pty... -m declaration had
> >been made in the dsl-provider config), I was able to sucessfully
> >download one single e-mail from a server. There was only one e-mail
> >in that account and it downloaded like normal. So I sent an e-mail to
> > that account, being that it was on a different server from my normal
> > tests, but that one would not download sucessfully. So it would seem
> > like it had something to do with the size and speed of the one that
> > downloaded properly.
> >
> >In short, it's still a no go and I have no clue why. The D-Link
> >router still works great, but pppoe from the firewall doesn't.
>
> The d-link works... And does this also go thru the same iptables
> rules as the PPPoE?
>
> If so, then playing with iptables is only going to break something.
> In any event, a run of "/etc/init.d/iptables stop" (as root of
> course) will open things up and prove or disprove that theory. I
> wouldn't leave it off for very long though.
>
> If you persist in using PPPoE rather than a good router, then I
> believe I'd take this problem to the Roaring Penguin folks to see if
> they've a new version that fixes this, or can use you for a test bed
> to see about fixing it.
No, the d-link has it's own firewall stuff. It connects directly to the
network line, in place of a modem. (Since this fiber optic service does
not have a "modem").
I tried disabling iptables on the firewall to see if I still had the
same problem, except I do not have a way of downloading e-mail on the
firewall. And since iptables was no longer doing NAT, I could not do
anything web related from my client machines. :-)
I also upgraded from a 2.4.24-2-586tsc kernel to a 2.6.8-2-386 kernel
tonight to see if it would help anything. It did not seem to have any
affect on the problem.
Thanks,
Jacob
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEJgpwkpJ43hY3cTURAkNfAJkB5mDZzXVOFTWmn1dI0iyROfjtagCg3+Va
PZFLA9APnapatMPzY49Jv3s=
=yXlF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: