From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Sep 24 22:08:45 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA01527
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:08:45 -0700
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA01522
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:08:42 -0700
Received: from bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au [130.102.2.1])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id WAA01058
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:08:22 -0700
Received: from cc.uq.oz.au by bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au 
          id <12573-0@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:05:51 +1000
Received: from orion.devetir.qld.gov.au 
          by pandora.devetir.qld.gov.au (8.6.10/DEVETIR-E0.3a) with ESMTP 
          id PAA19307; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:10:49 +1000
Received: by orion.devetir.qld.gov.au (8.6.10/DEVETIR-0.3) id PAA10028;
          Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:06:37 +1000
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:06:37 +1000
From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au>
Message-Id: <199509250506.PAA10028@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au>
To: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au
Subject: Re: pppd proxy arp fix in PR 701
Newsgroups: local.freebsd.current
References: <DFFLMB.5HJ@devetir.qld.gov.au>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
>can anybody verify that the suggested fix in PR # 701 to make pppd's
>proxy arp working is correct?  I don't do proxy arp anywhere.

It works for me, of course!

And here's another satisfied customer:

>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 14:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Duane R. Ellison" <duane@gargamel.ptw.com>
>Subject: Re: help with pppd
>
>Hey worked great!!! Thanks for the help...
>
>	---  Duane

John Capo <jc@irbs.com> wrote:
>If it does not deal with the fact that once you hit a continue
>in the for() loop in sys-bsd.c line 671 it loops forever, no.

The loop was changed so that 'continue' is safe to use.  This fixes the
cpu-hog behaviour that some people have reported.

Stephen.