Hi Rob,
change looks fine and handles the MS idiosyncrasies neatly
change works fine ... consistent responses and failing test returns
expected results
regards
Mark
On 09/12/2015 01:44, Rob McKenna wrote:
The intention of the 2nd revision of the fix is to make the
undocumented 1000ms
On 12/9/2015 9:44 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
> The intention of the 2nd revision of the fix is to make the undocumented
> 1000ms problem a non issue.
>
> If a user calls this function with a timeout of 200ms that timeout is
> automatically substituted for 1000ms in the IcmpSendEcho call. Once the
> re
The intention of the 2nd revision of the fix is to make the undocumented
1000ms problem a non issue.
If a user calls this function with a timeout of 200ms that timeout is
automatically substituted for 1000ms in the IcmpSendEcho call. Once the
response is received its RTT is checked to make sur
Is it nice to say in the spec that it is not reliable if the timeout is
too small? At least 1000ms timeout by default may be not acceptable in
some circumstances.
Xuelei
On 12/9/2015 12:31 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Testing has shown that when a timeout < 1000ms is specified the
> IcmpSendEcho cal
Testing has shown that when a timeout < 1000ms is specified the
IcmpSendEcho calls fail (apparently) randomly. Once the timeout is
1000ms or greater it works as expected. Therefore I've updated the fix
to use 1000ms as a minimum. The existing logic ensures that the ttl is
less than the specifie
