Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> How many neighbors do you want to maintain? >> I guess you have to increase the number of gc_thresh1. > The current use cases have up to 2048 entries. > This is expected to grow in the future. > The 3.4 kernel used in the system today is limited to 1024, > but that has been raised to about 10k. > > The gc_thresh1 test is not implemented in 3.4 but can be backported, > but still not convinced it is a good idea.
Why? > To complicate things, one requirement is that for some interfaces > you always want to keep things alive, if connected, but > for other interfaces you want things to be removed > to conserve memory. > Actually you would want to do this selection on a subnet level. If you want to introduce per-interface parameter, I am okay with it. > > Internal discussions resulted in a proposal to change the patch, > so that you have a "keepalive" flag which is tested after > it has been decided to exit the REACHABLE state. > > if the "keepalive" flag is set, you always go to DELAY state from REACHABLE. No. -- Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshif...@miraclelinux.com> Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
