From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: ARP table question Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:23:53 -0800 Message-ID: <49259D29.3070308@candelatech.com> References: <49221929.7060504@candelatech.com> <49221CE1.9000807@hp.com> <49221F7A.8030706@candelatech.com> <20081120.003306.213001819.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:60158 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753471AbYKTRX7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:23:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081120.003306.213001819.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: >> After some more testing, I can still get it into a bad >> state if I have a retrans timer of 1 sec and a randomness of 5 secs >> and manage to cause all 1000 arp entries to go stale at once (by >> yanking a cable, for instance). >> >> It seems I have to bump up the base timer to 3-5 seconds (I'm >> leaving the random backoff at 5 secs as well). > > This scheme still seems hackish to me, so I'm going to defer on this > for now. You think something like an exponential backoff capped at some user-configurable max-value would be better? -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com