Re: userland ppp ("No context" errors"

[Francis Gudin <fgudin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2006-01-28, Christian 'reezer' Sturm <athaba@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Francis Gudin <fgudin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
><snip>
>> Those errors say: "No context (use the 'link' command)"
>
> I have the same problem.
>
>> After digging a bit the manpage, i decided to try prefixing all those
>> lines with "link deflink " and *it worked*. Now ppp doesn't scream
>> anymore and is functional again.
>
> Try to remove the space(s) in front of each line. On my box this
> worked too.
>
>> I'm not doing anything fancy with it: merely use it for a PPPoE
>> connection.
>
> Could you please post your ppp.conf. Especially the line starting with
> set device. I always get Warning: Bad label in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf (line
> 3) - missing colon
>
><snip>
>
> reezer

Yes, here it is (this version works alright) <<EOF

default:
 set log Phase Chat LCP IPCP IPV6CP CCP tun command
 link deflink ident user-ppp VERSION (built COMPILATIONDATE)

 link deflink set device /dev/cuaa0
 link deflink set speed 115200
 link deflink set ctsrts on
 link deflink set dial "ABORT BUSY ABORT NO\\sCARRIER TIMEOUT 5 \
           \"\" AT OK-AT-OK ATE1Q0 OK \\dATDT\\T TIMEOUT 40 CONNECT"
 set timeout 180
 link deflink set redial 15 28800
 link deflink set reconnect 15 28800

 nat enable yes
 nat log yes
 link deflink enable lqr
 link deflink set lqrperiod 60

rtc:
 set phone XXXXXXXXXX
 set authname XXXXXX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 set authkey XXXXXXXX
 set ifaddr 10.0.0.1/0 10.0.0.2/0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0
 add! default HISADDR

pppoe:

  link deflink set device PPPoE:lnc0
  link deflink set mru 1435
  link deflink set mtu 1435
  link deflink set speed sync
  link deflink set dial
  link deflink set login
  set timeout 0
  set authname XXXXXX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  set authkey XXXXXXXX
  set ifaddr 213.41.166.51/0 10.0.0.2/0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0
  add! default HISADDR

EOF

Well, if nothing's allowed at beginning of lines in ppp.conf, maybe
fixing the different sample files and adding this information to ppp(8)
could suffice ? Though i guess that change wasn't intended.

Francis.