From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Sep 17 14:52:47 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA27689 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:52:47 -0700 Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA27684 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:52:36 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id WAA29755 ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 22:51:24 +0100 X-Message: This is a dial-up site. Quick responses to e-mails should not be relied upon. Thanks! To: Network Coordinator cc: Rob Simons , questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pppd acting up In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:06:28 EDT." Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 22:51:23 +0100 Message-ID: <29753.811374683@palmer.demon.co.uk> From: Gary Palmer Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In message , Network Coo rdinator writes: >> My guess is that is your problem. Unfortunately, I don't have time at >> the minute to track it down, but I've heard similar complaints from >> others about this, and I think that the proxyarp stuff is involved. >Well pppd doesn't die for us, and we aren't usign proxyarp. Ah. Oops. Sorry. I should have been clearer: I believe that the proxyarp flag causes the pppd to go beserk and consume lots of processor time for no apparent reason. I knew someone who ran pppd and his machine never saw a processor load below 1.0 as a result. The fact that the proxyarp flag doesn't work, and is common in both these situations makes me suspicious. The friend also despaired of pppd not hanging up cleanly, and hacked together a script which ping'ed the remote end every so often and killed the pppd if it didn't reply. A hack, but it work(ed). Sorry for any confusion. Gary