IIRC and you mentioned Luminary, there is a hardware filter so that
unwanted ports don't even find their way to the stack. This may be very
important in big LANs, specialy with lots of windows...
If you manage to set this up, please send feedback.
Alain
JM escreveu:
Ahh, never thought of the "unexpected" packets. I learn a little more
each day.
--- On *Thu, 8/13/09, Kieran Mansley /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: Kieran Mansley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Why so many pbufs required?
To: "Mailing list for lwIP users" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:22 AM
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 04:09 -0700, JM wrote:
You're assuming that the stack will only receive packets for your
application. In most networks this is not true - there will be a fair
number of broadcasts, and other stuff that your application will never
see. These will still be passed to the stack, and each will use (at
least) one PBUF_POOL pbuf. There may be other things, such as TCP ACKs
for any data you send, that also come in as separate packets and each
use PBUF_POOL pbufs.
Chris's point about using more-but-smaller pbufs in the pool is a good
one. It will mean you might get away with less memory and fewer dropped
packets, at the cost of a little extra overhead for the chaining.
Kieran
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected] </mc/[email protected]>
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
