Heres some screen shots of log:


![]() ![]() |
PenultimateHop: This is something that realistically only your ISP can help troubleshoot, and only if they care to look into it in detail. It could be your router is doing something odd causing an incompatibility between the ISP's BNG and your router in the PPPoE stack (this happens far too often for a 13 year old protocol), a misconfiguration on the RG, UFB network, or ISP network, or a broken router.
What happens if you use a different (non-TPLink) router? Oops - I see you did already. Odd to impact both. Do you have the routers set-up correctly (e.g. tagging on the WAN port, if required)?
bender: I've seen one similar instance of this before - the ONT for whatever reason just wasn't learning the router's MAC address. It was showing up on the handover circuit but no return traffic was getting back to the router.
Could connect with a laptop plugged in directly etc.
In the end leaving the ONT off for a few minutes resolved it, power cycling it (turning back on immediately) did nothing.
Try turning your ONT off for 10 minutes or so and see if this resolves it, if it does please post back as I suspect it may be a firmware bug in the ONT that needs to be fixed.
PenultimateHop: Could you get a packet capture of the working Windows PPPoE session and the failing CPE PPPOE session? This would require putting something between the ONT and the PPP client in order to capture packets.
Otherwise, your ISP really needs to debug the PPP session on their BRAS and see what they see.
The only thing that's jumping out to me is if the CPE is putting in some tag in the PADI that the BRAS is rejecting (and choosing not to reply with PADO). A packet capture would be helpful in this regard - although it wouldn't really explain why the first connection works but the subsequent ones don't...
ptinson: A packet size of 60 Bytes should not cause an issue.
RFC2516 specifies that a PADI packet "MUST NOT exceed 1484 octets" and 60 Bytes is certainly less.
I would see if your ISP is able to do a packet capture as your modem and then your PC connects.
ptinson: That very odd. Insertion of HTTP into a PADO would strike me as very concerning.
I would ask the ISP to explain why the PADO has this data, and provide the pcap for them to investigate, they really should be proving its not being inserted in their network.
If its not then its an even bigger issue.
![]() ![]() |