Awesome, thanks again!
	Rick

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Martin Husemann wrote:

> > and possibly after I've destroyed and recreated the interface atleast once
> > (I think that was the case all 3 times now, not sure if its relevant) I
> > get a page fault in sppp_keepalive (+0x2c).
>
> Yes, known problem. This is the slow timeout handler getting called on a
> deleted interface.
>
> > Even if I don't create the pppoe0 interface and don't call pppoectl to
> > associate it with an ethernet interface, pppoe still seems to be listening
> > on my ethernet interface.  I get "pppoe: received PADO but could not find
> > request for it" kernel messages.
>
> Well, right. Maybe these messages should moved inside some diagnostic
> option, but they should not cause real problems. The ethernet input path
> recognizes the incoming packets if PPPOE is configured in the kernel and
> tries to find an active pppoe interface for them. Failure to find this is
> an error, typically - but not in the situation you describe.
>
> > Is there any way to see what the remote IP address is?
>
> Yeah, I'll fix this real soon now, it causes major lossage for some other
> work I'm about to commit.
>
> > Is "route add -ifp pppoe0 default 0.0.0.1" the correct way to add a
> > default route bound to the interface (i.e. immune to IP address change)?
>
> That's the way I do it - and it works for me. Soon there'll be an alternative
> way, acompanied by pppoe configuration documentation...