Hello, On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:13 PM Vitaliy Makkoveev <henscheltig...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 04:08:01AM +0300, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:11 PM Vitaliy Makkoveev > > <henscheltig...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 10:03:40PM +0300, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > > > > Split checks from frame accepting with header removing in the common > > > > PPP input function. This should fix packet capture on a PPP interfaces. > > > > > > Can you describe the problem you fix? As mpi@ pointed to me, reviewers > > > are stupid and have no telepathy skills :) > > > > When I tried to capture packets on a ppp (4) interface (with pipex > > activated), I noticed that all the PPP CCP frames were ok, but all the > > ingress PPP IP frames were mangled, and they did not contain the PPP > > header at all. > > This time only pppx(4) and pppac(4) have pipex(4) support.
Yes, and as I wrote in the first mail, now I am working on ppp(4) & pipex(4) integration to speed up client side of L2TP. > I don't see > packet capture problems on them. Can you catch and share how to > reproduce this problem with pppx(4) or pppac(4)? > > Also did you test your diff with pppx(4) and pppac(4)? I am entirely missed the fact that pppx(4) also have IFT_PPP type. Thank you for pointing me. I will recheck pppx(4) work and return as soon as I will have a better solution. -- Sergey
