lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #13780, lcp_echo_interval maximum value
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #13780: lcp_echo_interval maximum value
Submitter: | Marco <marcoe> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 16 Oct 2015 04:10:08 PM UTC | ||
Category: | PPP | Should Start On: | Fri 16 Oct 2015 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Sun 25 Oct 2015 12:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Cancelled | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Percent Complete: | 0% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 1.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Mon 26 Oct 2015 11:03:12 AM UTC, comment #9: |
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Mon 26 Oct 2015 09:04:46 AM UTC, comment #8: Hello Sylvain,
|
Marco <marcoe> |
Mon 19 Oct 2015 11:45:43 AM UTC, comment #7: Hi,
|
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Mon 19 Oct 2015 10:24:41 AM UTC, comment #6: Hello Sylvain,
|
Marco <marcoe> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 05:29:47 PM UTC, comment #5: Well, this is what I thought :-)
|
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 05:18:28 PM UTC, comment #4: We use PPPoS with a 2G-GPRS modem. |
Marco <marcoe> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 05:14:03 PM UTC, comment #3: Over which support type ? dialup ? GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/… ? L2TP ? |
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 04:55:25 PM UTC, comment #2: In our use case we setup a ppp connection and try to never end it. Every, let me say, 900 seconds we effectively use it for a short tcp connection.
|
Marco <marcoe> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 04:33:51 PM UTC, comment #1: I am not strictly opposed to this, it only cost one byte after all for a 16 bit value, but still, why do you think you would need to set a value over 255 seconds ?
|
Sylvain Rochet <gradator> |
Fri 16 Oct 2015 04:10:08 PM UTC, original submission:
Hello all, it is possible to define lcp_echo_interval field of the ppp_settings struct as a 16 o 32 bit value in order to set request intervals greater than 255 seconds?
|
Marco <marcoe> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015-10-26 | gradator | Status | None | Cancelled | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-caa5.
Corresponding source code
Hello Marco,
Great!, let's keep it u8_t until someone find a real reason to
grow it, every byte saved is good.
Thank you for your patience, I know it's not easy to propose
a simple change like that and then having to explain into
details why :-)
Sylvain