Re: Arp expire/timeout 2.1.132/2.2pre1

Florian Lohoff (flo@rfc822.org)
Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:56:16 +0100

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/