Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:56:16 +0100 | From | Florian Lohoff <> | Subject | Re: Arp expire/timeout 2.1.132/2.2pre1 |
| |
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 02:18:04PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:37:26 +0100 > From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> > > Still there is the issue that user level protocols can't signal > forward process to the kernel. How about adding a socket option > that does it for connected sockets to plug this hole? > > This is not the answer, and I'll never accept such a patch. > > If the machine is not responding to ARP, it isn't doing ARP and there > is nothing we can do about it. Allowing notification of forward > progress at the user level is at best a band-aid.
It is doing arp but not during tftp download (DECstation - Playing around with Linux/MIPS). This is something ever worked with 2.0 which i stumbled over going to 2.2. I was wondering why arp entrys expire that fast.
> People can add hard coded ARP entries to their tftp servers for > machines which will use tftp to boot. And such people have such a > list anyways if they care one iota about using tftp securely, right?
This is exactly what i did - but i was wondering if this wouldnt cause much more ARP traffic when the arp entry does expire more quickly ?
Flo -- Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5241-470566 Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three). (RFC 1925)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |