On Oct 20,  9:52am, Henry Nelson wrote:
}
} The following reply was made to PR misc/33898; it has been noted by GNATS.
} 
} From: Henry Nelson <netb@yuba.ne.jp>
} To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
} Cc: 
} Subject: Re: misc/33898: "NetBSD Documentation: Steps to connect via PPPoE (DSL)" needs correction
} Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 06:43:08 +0900
} 
}  On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:55:02AM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
}  > The following reply was made to PR misc/33898; it has been noted by GNATS.
}  >  On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 08:35:00AM +0000, henry nelson wrote:
}  >  > 	If "/etc/ifconfig.pppoe0" has "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.1 up" as its last line,
}  >  > 	pppoe0 is always "inet 0.0.0.0 -> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000"
}  >  > 	and never gets a real ip address.
}  >  
}  >  It works for me just fine with netmask 0xff000000 (and I don't see why
}  >  netmask should make a difference here).
}  
}  I don't think netmask has anything to do with the problem.  My problem
}  report is about the "! /sbin/ifconfig pppoe0 inet " which I needed to
}  prefix to the "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.1 up" that is in the instructions.
}  
}  With only "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.1 up" in "/etc/ifconfig.pppoe0", it did not
}  work.  As you know, I tried everything.  After I prefixed (only change)
}  "! /sbin/ifconfig pppoe0 inet " to that, it started working immediately.
}  
}  If the "netmask 0xffffffff" that I added in my patch is incorrect,
}  please remove it.  That is NOT the important part.  Prefixing the
}  command is what is essential.  I will try it without the netmask as
}  soon as possible, but now that the machine is in production it will
}  be about 3 weeks before I can do shutdown maintenance.

     Can you try it with 'inet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.1 up' in
/etc/ifconfig.pppoe0, i.e. without the '! /sbin/ifconfig pppoe0' part
on the front?  Given the way /etc/ifconfig.* is processed, this should
be equivalent.

}-- End of excerpt from Henry Nelson