From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Sep 17 14:58:04 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA27875 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:58:04 -0700 Received: from Simplex.NL (Simplex.NL [193.78.46.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA27868 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:57:59 -0700 Received: (from rob@localhost) by Simplex.NL (8.6.12/8.6.12-RS) id XAA13307 for questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:59:40 +0200 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:59:40 +0200 From: Rob Simons Message-Id: <199509172159.XAA13307@Simplex.NL> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pppd acting up 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). Apparently you're right that it's the proxyarp option. I disabled it, and the CPU load was gone. The pppd hangs up cleanly now as well. Only problem is that there's no arp entries made on logging on, which disables all outside-access for those hosts. We've created a ip-up script which looked like this: #!/bin/sh # # interface tty speed localip remoteip arp -s $5 0:0:1c:6:1e:d2 pub I guess you can imagine what this SHOULD do. As a matter a fact, it doesn't do anything. We've checked if it's excecuted, and it does excecute all right. There's no apparent cause why this shouldn't work, but it doesn't work all the same. Any clues ? :-) - Rob. /*--------------------------------------------------------------*\ /* Rob Simons | rob@simplex.nl *\ /* ------------ | ------------- | -------- | ------- *\ /* Novell Netware System Operator | UNIX system operator *\ /*--------------------------------------------------------------*\