SBC Yahoo DSL with Linux PPPoE

Background:
I have 5 static IPs. My Windows box works fine (call it 1.2.3.4). My Linux
box (call it 1.2.3.5) does not. They can ping each other (if I set up
1.2.3.5 on eth0). Windows can get to the 'net, and Linux cannot. Using
Roaring Penguin pppoe client. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (which is built
similiarly to 9.0, so anyone using that, it's the same sort of issue.)

Here's what happens:
Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: pppd 2.4.1 started by root, uid 0
Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: Using interface ppp0
Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/3
Aug19 06:35:45 eagle /etc/hotplug/net.agent: assuming ppp0 is already up
Aug 19 06:35:51 eagle logdrake[2719]: ### Program is starting ###
Aug 19 06:36:36 eagle pppoe[2665]: Timeout waiting for PADS packets
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle pppd[2664]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle pppd[2664]: Connection terminated.
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle pppd[2664]: Using interface ppp0
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle pppd[2664]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/3
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle /etc/hotplug/net.agent: NET unregister event not
supported
Aug 19 06:36:47 eagle /etc/hotplug/net.agent: assuming ppp0 is already up
Aug 19 06:37:07 eagle pppoe[2891]: Timeout waiting for PADS packets
Aug 19 06:37:18 eagle pppd[2664]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests
Aug 19 06:37:18 eagle pppd[2664]: Connection terminated.

and so forth and so on, doing the same thing...

Here's what I know:
a) setting up ifcfg-eth0 with the static IP and protocol=static does not
work in the exact same manner as no IP with protocol=none.

b) I can ping back and forth from 1.2.3.4 to 1.2.3.5. Call my gateway
1.2.3.6 (it's on SBC's end of the DSL modem). Windows can ping it and get
through to the net. Linux cannot.

c) I have neither iptables nor ipchains running during this time.

Here's what I don't know:

a) The syntax for putting my static IP into the options file, if that's
where it goes.
b) Whether anyone has *ever* succeeded in getting SBC Yahoo working with
PPPoE on Linux.
c) How to set my MTU if that's required.
d) Why Linux (or SBC) hates me.






Scott Whitney

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:04:03 -0500, Scott Whitney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Background:
> I have 5 static IPs. My Windows box works fine (call it 1.2.3.4). My Linux
> box (call it 1.2.3.5) does not. They can ping each other (if I set up
> 1.2.3.5 on eth0). Windows can get to the 'net, and Linux cannot. Using
> Roaring Penguin pppoe client. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (which is built
> similiarly to 9.0, so anyone using that, it's the same sort of issue.)

You did not say which modem or modem/router model you have and an ascii
art (fixed font) diagram of your layout may help. It also might help if
we knew what SBC area you are in. For example ameritech.net has always
used PPPoE for static IPs, and swbell and packbell used to not use PPPoE
for static, but are now moving to PPPoE for static IPs. So even older
users within your area might not be totally up on current procedures.

If you got a static IP package from SBC with a suitable modem/router
(5861?), you would not even be concerned with PPPoE, since the
modem/router would handle that.

If you upgraded from dynamic to static without getting different hardware,
and have 5360, older 5100, or 5100b set to have PC do PPPoE, you would
either need a hardware router capable of multiple static IP's, or a PC
that could handle the PPPoE connection and route the rest of your IP block
to another nic. Incoming traffic for your IP block is routed to your
single connecting PPPoE IP (you cannot have more than 1 PPPoE connection).

So if you think you can just put a hub/switch on the modem and connect
more than 1 PC with PPPoE, that will not work, but is not necessary. You
just need proper routing on whatever does the single PPPoE connection.

> Here's what I don't know:
>
> a) The syntax for putting my static IP into the options file, if that's
> where it goes.

You configure PPPoE as dynamic, but use a special login domain, so you
will automatically get assigned proper IP and your IP block will be routed
to you. In Ameritech land username for static would be
(E-Mail Removed) (or username@static_ameritech.net)

However, if you have the proper SBC modem/router for static IPs that does
the PPPoE, you would just assign one of your static IP's to each box,
gateway to your router, and SBC nameservers. In that case your PC's would
not be concerned with PPPoE.

> b) Whether anyone has *ever* succeeded in getting SBC Yahoo working with
> PPPoE on Linux.

I am currently using SBC Yahoo dynamic adsl. It was easy to config with
YaST2 in SuSE 8.2 Pro, which also has SuSEfirewall2 that can easily be
configured for public DMZ on one interface and masqueraded LAN on another
interface (3 nics total including nic to modem).

> c) How to set my MTU if that's required.

PPPoE MTU will automatically be set to maximum (which is 1492 for PPPoE
due to 8 byte header). However, if you have a server behind a firewall or
nat router, you might need to set local nic (on router or on server) to
same MTU as the PPPoE connection. Because Linux does not like receiving
fragmented packets which may happen if something blocks path MTU
discovery.

Howver, an ethernet line that handles the PPPoE itself should not be
altered or that will further dwindle your PPPoE MTU.

> d) Why Linux (or SBC) hates me.

SBC uses standard PPPoE that should work with any OS. But we cannot tell
what you might be doing wrong from the info provided. I suggest you lurk
or ask questions in SBC related forum for your area at
http://www.broadbandreports.com/ alias http://www.dslreports.com/

--
David Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/

Scott Whitney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Background:
> I have 5 static IPs. My Windows box works fine (call it 1.2.3.4). My Linux
> box (call it 1.2.3.5) does not. They can ping each other (if I set up
> 1.2.3.5 on eth0). Windows can get to the 'net, and Linux cannot. Using
> Roaring Penguin pppoe client. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (which is built
> similiarly to 9.0, so anyone using that, it's the same sort of issue.)

> Here's what happens:
> Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: pppd 2.4.1 started by root, uid 0
> Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: Using interface ppp0
> Aug 19 06:35:45 eagle pppd[2664]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/3
> Aug19 06:35:45 eagle /etc/hotplug/net.agent: assuming ppp0 is already up
> Aug 19 06:35:51 eagle logdrake[2719]: ### Program is starting ###
> Aug 19 06:36:36 eagle pppoe[2665]: Timeout waiting for PADS packets

It looks like you sent a PADI, got a PADO, and responded with a PADR,
but received no PADS. Maybe you need a particular TAG Service-Name
when you have a block of static IP addresses. RFC 2516 (PPPoE) says
the AC MUST return an error in a PADS reply when it gets a Service-Name
it doesn't like, but sometimes RFCs are violated in implementations.

SBC undoubtedly supplies MS clients with a nice pre-configured client
package. So you might be able to use adsl-sniff on the Linux box while
the MS host is establishing a connection to SBC and find out what the
Service-Name should be. That name would likely need to be assigned to
the shell variable SERVICENAME in pppoe.conf.

This pdf may be helpful:

http://www.roaringpenguin.com/images...ppoe-paper.pdf

You should take this reply with a large grain of salt since I've never
done PPPoE, period.

-- Clifford Kite Email: "echo xvgr_yvahk-(E-Mail Removed)|rot13"
PPP-Q&A links, downloads: http://ckite.no-ip.net/
/* The wealth of a nation is created by the productive labor of its
* citizens. */