From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: ARP table question Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:33:22 -0500 Message-ID: <20081120173322.GM22491@kvack.org> References: <49221929.7060504@candelatech.com> <49221CE1.9000807@hp.com> <49221F7A.8030706@candelatech.com> <20081120.003306.213001819.davem@davemloft.net> <49259D29.3070308@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from oldkanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:34515 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750969AbYKTRqt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:46:49 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49259D29.3070308@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:23:53AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > You think something like an exponential backoff capped at some > user-configurable > max-value would be better? I'll throw in an observation on arp behaviour on wifi / HomePNA: neither protocol provides reliable delivery of broadcast traffic, while point to point traffic is reliably delivered. If arp traffic is not sufficiently aggressive when a connection is first used, the user can end up waiting some time until one of the broadcast packets finally gets through. Doing an exponential backoff will make this significantly worse, unless the initial timeout is sufficiently small. -ben -- "Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important." Don't Email: .