Upgrade from 12/13 to 12/18 -> PPPoE dead…
-
It just takes some minutes if you have enabled your WAN interface as OPT…
-
my wan interface isnt opt. no funny stuff now. just pppoe and thats it.
i do have opt1, but thats on another interface.
-
With php: 2.0-BETA5 (i386) built on Tue Jan 11 14:19:18 EST 2011
Jan 11 20:58:50 ppp: [wan_link0] Link: reconnection attempt 131 in 2 seconds Jan 11 20:58:50 ppp: [wan_link0] LCP: Down event Jan 11 20:58:50 ppp: [wan_link0] Link: DOWN event Jan 11 20:58:50 ppp: [wan_link0] can't remove hook mpd10010-0 from node "[17]:": No such file or directory Jan 11 20:58:50 ppp: [wan_link0] PPPoE: can't connect "[17]:"->"mpd10010-0" and "[15]:"->"left": No such file or directoryGot to use the 'connect' button to have my wan/pppoe link working.
Strange because the release from the 8th worked for me.
-
Still having the issue with the release from the 13th. So far, the last that works for me was the release from the 8th of january
Romain -
Try to do a complete reinstall with the latest snap. It works for a long time now here on my Alix…
-
Try to do a complete reinstall with the latest snap. It works for a long time now here on my Alix…
Didn't you remove your modem access opt interface though?
-
Yes I did and that why it is working…
-
Yeah, it's still broken for people who have their modem interface assigned.
No changes have happened that would try to fix it though, so it isn't likely to start working for others until a fix gets committed.
-
With 2.0-BETA5 (i386) built on Sat Jan 15 02:40:01 EST 2011
It works! Very cool!
-
Except that there were still no changes that would have impacted that functionality…
You might look closer into why the last two Saturday updates seem to have worked for you but nothing in between. Perhaps the timing on your part has more to do with it than anything we've changed. :-)
-
With 2.0-BETA5 (i386) built on Sat Jan 15 02:40:01 EST 2011
It works! Very cool!
And you have enabled OPTx(WAN) in order to access your modem through that?
-
My setup is
wan (em0) –- pppoe --- dsl router---internet
dsl (opt) (em0) ---------So yes, I have an opt interface connected to my dsl router as well as a pppoe connection for the wan using same phy interface em0
Romain
-
My setup is
wan (em0) –- pppoe --- dsl router---internet
dsl (opt) (em0) ---------So yes, I have an opt interface connected to my dsl router as well as a pppoe connection for the wan using same phy interface em0
Romain
Thanks. I'll check with the latest snap if it works for me now as well….
-
Except that there were still no changes that would have impacted that functionality…
You might look closer into why the last two Saturday updates seem to have worked for you but nothing in between. Perhaps the timing on your part has more to do with it than anything we've changed. :-)
Sure, I will try to investigate why it is working now even if no code changes have been made concerning this issue. Thanks for the info!
-
It is not working (probably because there were no changes at all) with OPT enabled for Modem access on WAN. As soon as I enabled the OPT interfaces my PPPoE was brought down and I had the same problem as always. PPP trying to connect all the time…
Did not even try to do an update then... -
Hi Guys,
Try commenting out line 2620 in /etc/inc/interfaces.inc. (" interface_netgraph_needed($interface); ") (add a // to the front of the line to make it a comment.).
GB
-
Hi Guys,
Try commenting out line 2620 in /etc/inc/interfaces.inc. (" interface_netgraph_needed($interface); ") (add a // to the front of the line to make it a comment.).
GB
Hi m8,
yeah, that works! What does this function do? Is that easy to fix now? I didn't do a firmware upgrade now, but I activated OPT for modem access and rebooted. As soon as my pfSense box was reachable I saw that the PPPoE connection was up as well….
Nice!
-
That function was added as an optimization for very high bandwidth interfaces that don't need netgraph nodes, but apparently, more interfaces need the nodes attached than the function allows.
GB
-
Thanks for the clarification. Can somebody now 'fix' this? Or is this more complicated than commenting that out? Am I right that every update will change that file to the original state?
-
The underlying function needs fixed, not removed. So it's a bit more complex than just commenting out one line.
Until it's fixed in our repo this workaround would have to be repeated after each update.
