On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Edouard Gomez wrote:
>
> Tim Woodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > header[2] = (vci & 0x0ff0) >> 4;
> > header[3] = ((vci & 0x000f) << 4) | (pti << 1) | clp;
> > -#ifdef DEBUG
> > - header[4] = atm_calc_hec(header);
> > -#else
> > - header[4] = 0xec; /
Tim Woodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> header[2] = (vci & 0x0ff0) >> 4;
> header[3] = ((vci & 0x000f) << 4) | (pti << 1) | clp;
> -#ifdef DEBUG
> - header[4] = atm_calc_hec(header);
> -#else
> - header[4] = 0xec; /* Arbitrary constant */
> -#endif
I don't know ex
I just added the line you said into the crc.h, recompiled and tested but
there are no differences in the connection behaviour.
I also tried with your patch without getting any difference.
Let me know if you need other info.
Many thanks for helping me.
Regards
Paolo
At 01:39 PM 9/20/2002, you wr
Tim Woodall said:
> On 20 Sep 2002, Peter Riocreux wrote:
>> header[1] = (vpi << 4) | (vci >> 12);
>>
>> This looks suspect to me. I don't know the code, and I certainly know
>> nothing in detail about ATM, but IIRC, vci is a small (<8 bits?)
>> positive integer, so >>12 is going to make it
On 20 Sep 2002, Peter Riocreux wrote:
>
>
>
> >>header[1] = (vpi << 4) | (vci >> 12);
>
> This looks suspect to me. I don't know the code, and I certainly know
> nothing in detail about ATM, but IIRC, vci is a small (<8 bits?)
> positive integer, so >>12 is going to make it 0 always.
>
>> header[1] = (vpi << 4) | (vci >> 12);
This looks suspect to me. I don't know the code, and I certainly know
nothing in detail about ATM, but IIRC, vci is a small (<8 bits?)
positive integer, so >>12 is going to make it 0 always.
Perhaps you meant:
header[1] = (vpi << 4) | (v
Opinions?
Possibly move it into atm_calc_hec so that we can verify these crc's as well?
Add in code to check the vpi/vci?
static struct { int last_vpi, last_vci; } crc[16];
perhaps so that we remember the last crc for this vpi/vci pair with this
pti and clp?
Might want to expand the array to
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Paolo 'Garrone' Prandoni wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> > reading the docs attached to Speedtouch sw, I read that there are 2 method
> > to encapsulate/decapsulate PPP packets in/from AAL5. One is VCMUX and the
> > ather is LLC.
> >
> > My
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Paolo 'Garrone' Prandoni wrote:
> Hi all
> reading the docs attached to Speedtouch sw, I read that there are 2 method
> to encapsulate/decapsulate PPP packets in/from AAL5. One is VCMUX and the
> ather is LLC.
>
> My ISP (Elitel.biz) is using VCMUX. Can this be a problem?
