pppd errors when connecting

Hi
I use Demon as my ISP and tings had been going nicely until about Thurs
28 Sept 2006 when my
connection to the Net via Demon broadband started going very slow from
my box from both the Linux and WinXP operating systems.

I get (very!) numerous of the following in SYSLOG (Linux) and in WinXP
the number of errors in the 'connection status' is about 300 every 5
minutes.

Anybody else using Demon and have noticed anything or can otherwise
help? It's such that sometimes I have to try half a dozen times before
a
connection is established and even then it's really really slow.
Thanks, Michael

Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: Unsupported protocol
0x1 received
Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: sent [LCP ProtRej
id=0x61 00 01 00 21 45 00 01 e2 2b a9 40 00 33 06 2c 50 82 58 c8 38 3e
38 65 54 00 8f b2 b1 2b 0d 88 e1 ...]
Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: rcvd [proto=0x1] 00 21
45 00 00 98 6f b0 40 00 3b 06 76 4c c2 d9 f2 fd 3e 38 65 54 00 6e b4 aa
1c 5d c9 24 a0 19 ...

and also I've noticed:

Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: Unsupported protocol
0x1 received
Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: sent [LCP ProtRej
id=0x46 00 01 00 21 45 00 05 8c b9 2e 40 00
76 06 ed f6 d5 78 fe 47 3e 38 46 4e 01 bb a4 86 48 0a 18 da ...]
Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: read /dev/ppp: Value
too large for defined data type
Oct 4 20:51:18 manchester-campaigns last message repeated 32 times

michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi
> I use Demon as my ISP and tings had been going nicely until about Thurs
> 28 Sept 2006 when my
> connection to the Net via Demon broadband started going very slow from
> my box from both the Linux and WinXP operating systems.

> I get (very!) numerous of the following in SYSLOG (Linux) and in WinXP
> the number of errors in the 'connection status' is about 300 every 5
> minutes.

> Anybody else using Demon and have noticed anything or can otherwise
> help? It's such that sometimes I have to try half a dozen times before
> a connection is established and even then it's really really slow.
> Thanks, Michael

> Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: Unsupported protocol
> 0x1 received
> Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: sent [LCP ProtRej
> id=0x61 00 01 00 21 45 00 01 e2 2b a9 40 00 33 06 2c 50 82 58 c8 38 3e
> 38 65 54 00 8f b2 b1 2b 0d 88 e1 ...]
> Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: rcvd [proto=0x1] 00 21
> 45 00 00 98 6f b0 40 00 3b 06 76 4c c2 d9 f2 fd 3e 38 65 54 00 6e b4 aa
> 1c 5d c9 24 a0 19 ...

> and also I've noticed:

> Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: Unsupported protocol
> 0x1 received
> Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: sent [LCP ProtRej
> id=0x46 00 01 00 21 45 00 05 8c b9 2e 40 00
> 76 06 ed f6 d5 78 fe 47 3e 38 46 4e 01 bb a4 86 48 0a 18 da ...]
> Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: read /dev/ppp: Value
> too large for defined data type
> Oct 4 20:51:18 manchester-campaigns last message repeated 32 times

The "Unsupported protocol 0x1" isn't a LCP protocol. The "21 45" is
very likely the beginning of an IPv4 packet as sent over PPP, but the
data link level encapsulation is not the AHDLC that async PPP uses..

Demon is somehow letting something get on the line that shouldn't be
there and it's bogging down the connection.

--
Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"

Clifford Kite wrote:
> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Hi
> > I use Demon as my ISP and tings had been going nicely until about Thurs
> > 28 Sept 2006 when my
> > connection to the Net via Demon broadband started going very slow from
> > my box from both the Linux and WinXP operating systems.
>
> > I get (very!) numerous of the following in SYSLOG (Linux) and in WinXP
> > the number of errors in the 'connection status' is about 300 every 5
> > minutes.
>
> > Anybody else using Demon and have noticed anything or can otherwise
> > help? It's such that sometimes I have to try half a dozen times before
> > a connection is established and even then it's really really slow.
> > Thanks, Michael
>
> > Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: Unsupported protocol
> > 0x1 received
> > Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: sent [LCP ProtRej
> > id=0x61 00 01 00 21 45 00 01 e2 2b a9 40 00 33 06 2c 50 82 58 c8 38 3e
> > 38 65 54 00 8f b2 b1 2b 0d 88 e1 ...]
> > Oct 1 20:03:44 manchester-campaigns pppd[5621]: rcvd [proto=0x1] 00 21
> > 45 00 00 98 6f b0 40 00 3b 06 76 4c c2 d9 f2 fd 3e 38 65 54 00 6e b4 aa
> > 1c 5d c9 24 a0 19 ...
>
> > and also I've noticed:
>
> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: Unsupported protocol
> > 0x1 received
> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: sent [LCP ProtRej
> > id=0x46 00 01 00 21 45 00 05 8c b9 2e 40 00
> > 76 06 ed f6 d5 78 fe 47 3e 38 46 4e 01 bb a4 86 48 0a 18 da ...]
> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: read /dev/ppp: Value
> > too large for defined data type
> > Oct 4 20:51:18 manchester-campaigns last message repeated 32 times
>
> The "Unsupported protocol 0x1" isn't a LCP protocol. The "21 45" is
> very likely the beginning of an IPv4 packet as sent over PPP, but the
> data link level encapsulation is not the AHDLC that async PPP uses..
>
> Demon is somehow letting something get on the line that shouldn't be
> there and it's bogging down the connection.
>

Clifford - thanks for the reply. Since my original post I've done a
BTspeedtester and got 1.8Mbps but as soon as reconnect to Demon it
drops to nearer 100kps(!). Would I be correct in thinking from what
you've said that there's definitely something wrong at the Demon end
(ie not at my end and not with the line)?

Thanks, Michael

michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Clifford Kite wrote:
>> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: Unsupported protocol
>> > 0x1 received
>> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: sent [LCP ProtRej
>> > id=0x46 00 01 00 21 45 00 05 8c b9 2e 40 00
>> > 76 06 ed f6 d5 78 fe 47 3e 38 46 4e 01 bb a4 86 48 0a 18 da ...]
>> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: read /dev/ppp: Value
>> > too large for defined data type
>> > Oct 4 20:51:18 manchester-campaigns last message repeated 32 times
>>
>> The "Unsupported protocol 0x1" isn't a LCP protocol. The "21 45" is
>> very likely the beginning of an IPv4 packet as sent over PPP, but the
>> data link level encapsulation is not the AHDLC that async PPP uses..
>>
>> Demon is somehow letting something get on the line that shouldn't be
>> there and it's bogging down the connection.
>>

> Clifford - thanks for the reply. Since my original post I've done a
> BTspeedtester and got 1.8Mbps but as soon as reconnect to Demon it
> drops to nearer 100kps(!). Would I be correct in thinking from what
> you've said that there's definitely something wrong at the Demon end
> (ie not at my end and not with the line)?

You would be correct in thinking that, but in fact I'm not 100% certain
the problem is at Demon. That said...

The speeds you speak of mean you aren't using a regular PPP landline
connection, but what you have seems to have worked well for some period
of time before this problem arose. It also appears that even with
the problem you can surf the web, ect., albeit a lot slower - and the
slower speeds occur not only for ISP connections under Linux but under
M$ as well.

FWIW, I do think it must be either Demon or the "modem" (or whatever
it's called) between you and Demon. That opinion's based on the fact
that the problem exists for both Linux and M$. But it should be noted
this is contrary to the last post by J.C. on the PPP protocols group,
and J.C. is almost always right... And the leading "00 01" in the octet
streams reported by pppd (interpreted as unsupported LCP "protocol 0x1")
is a sticky wicket for both of us.

--
Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"
PPP-Q&A links, downloads: http://ckite.no-ip.net/
/* "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
RFC 1122 */

Clifford Kite wrote:
> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Clifford Kite wrote:
> >> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: Unsupported protocol
> >> > 0x1 received
> >> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: sent [LCP ProtRej
> >> > id=0x46 00 01 00 21 45 00 05 8c b9 2e 40 00
> >> > 76 06 ed f6 d5 78 fe 47 3e 38 46 4e 01 bb a4 86 48 0a 18 da ...]
> >> > Oct 4 20:51:12 manchester-campaigns pppd[5627]: read /dev/ppp: Value
> >> > too large for defined data type
> >> > Oct 4 20:51:18 manchester-campaigns last message repeated 32 times
> >>
> >> The "Unsupported protocol 0x1" isn't a LCP protocol. The "21 45" is
> >> very likely the beginning of an IPv4 packet as sent over PPP, but the
> >> data link level encapsulation is not the AHDLC that async PPP uses..
> >>
> >> Demon is somehow letting something get on the line that shouldn't be
> >> there and it's bogging down the connection.
> >>
>
> > Clifford - thanks for the reply. Since my original post I've done a
> > BTspeedtester and got 1.8Mbps but as soon as reconnect to Demon it
> > drops to nearer 100kps(!). Would I be correct in thinking from what
> > you've said that there's definitely something wrong at the Demon end
> > (ie not at my end and not with the line)?
>
> You would be correct in thinking that, but in fact I'm not 100% certain
> the problem is at Demon. That said...
>
> The speeds you speak of mean you aren't using a regular PPP landline
> connection,

Sorry to be naive but am a little confused by this statement. I pay
Demon for a 2Mbps ADSL line over my BT land line. Is that not "regular
PPP"?

> but what you have seems to have worked well for some period
> of time before this problem arose. It also appears that even with
> the problem you can surf the web, ect., albeit a lot slower - and the
> slower speeds occur not only for ISP connections under Linux but under
> M$ as well.

Correct. Also, sometimes the host is not resolved so I have to (eg)
reload web page. Presumably this is another effect of the main problem
(erroneous data within ppp)

> FWIW, I do think it must be either Demon or the "modem" (or whatever
> it's called) between you and Demon.

Do you mean my (Speedtouch 330) modem? I'll see if I can borrow a modem
in order to eliminate (or not) this...

Or perhaps something within the BT exchange?

> That opinion's based on the fact
> that the problem exists for both Linux and M$. But it should be noted
> this is contrary to the last post by J.C. on the PPP protocols group,
> and J.C. is almost always right... And the leading "00 01" in the octet
> streams reported by pppd (interpreted as unsupported LCP "protocol 0x1")
> is a sticky wicket for both of us.

Thanks, Michael

michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Clifford Kite wrote:
>> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> The speeds you speak of mean you aren't using a regular PPP landline
>> connection,

> Sorry to be naive but am a little confused by this statement. I pay
> Demon for a 2Mbps ADSL line over my BT land line. Is that not "regular
> PPP"?

Well, "regular" is relative to time and place I guess, and to me it
means a connection using protocols that don't require ADSL lines and
with speeds on the order of 50 kb/s down and 33 kb/s up.
....

>> FWIW, I do think it must be either Demon or the "modem" (or whatever
>> it's called) between you and Demon.

> Do you mean my (Speedtouch 330) modem? I'll see if I can borrow a modem
> in order to eliminate (or not) this...

> Or perhaps something within the BT exchange?

Yes, to both questions.

--
Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"

Clifford Kite wrote:
> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Clifford Kite wrote:
> >> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> The speeds you speak of mean you aren't using a regular PPP landline
> >> connection,
>
> > Sorry to be naive but am a little confused by this statement. I pay
> > Demon for a 2Mbps ADSL line over my BT land line. Is that not "regular
> > PPP"?
>
> Well, "regular" is relative to time and place I guess, and to me it
> means a connection using protocols that don't require ADSL lines and
> with speeds on the order of 50 kb/s down and 33 kb/s up.
> ...
>
> >> FWIW, I do think it must be either Demon or the "modem" (or whatever
> >> it's called) between you and Demon.
>
> > Do you mean my (Speedtouch 330) modem? I'll see if I can borrow a modem
> > in order to eliminate (or not) this...
>
> > Or perhaps something within the BT exchange?
>
> Yes, to both questions.
>
> --
> Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"


very strange.... took my Speedtouch 330 modem to a mate's and with
their (waitrose) ADSL it gave the expected 2Mbps d/load

got home, put their D-Link modem/router in and hey presto I'm back to
2Mbps rather than the 200Kbps!

not sure how to find logs on the modem/router but I guess it's better
at filtering out \protocol errors\

michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> very strange.... took my Speedtouch 330 modem to a mate's and with
> their (waitrose) ADSL it gave the expected 2Mbps d/load

> got home, put their D-Link modem/router in and hey presto I'm back to
> 2Mbps rather than the 200Kbps!

> not sure how to find logs on the modem/router but I guess it's better
> at filtering out \protocol errors\

Sounds like something was amiss with the modem which was made right by
powering it down and then back up.

--
Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"
/* In my book, the first poster to resort to personal abuse in a Usenet
debate loses by default. - Rod Smith */

Clifford Kite wrote:
> michael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > very strange.... took my Speedtouch 330 modem to a mate's and with
> > their (waitrose) ADSL it gave the expected 2Mbps d/load
>
> > got home, put their D-Link modem/router in and hey presto I'm back to
> > 2Mbps rather than the 200Kbps!
>
> > not sure how to find logs on the modem/router but I guess it's better
> > at filtering out \protocol errors\
>
> Sounds like something was amiss with the modem which was made right by
> powering it down and then back up.
>

Yes, esp since it now gives 1.8Mbp on the same machine setup as
previously was giving only 1.8Kbps... prob more likely that when
installed drivers on friends' machine it reset some firmware which had
somehow got messed with my setup...