R. David Murray added the comment: I'm not a networking expert at this level, but I believe what is happening here is that the network stack does an arp, and has a timeout waiting for the arp response that is longer than your socket timeout. So at some point its arp timeout expires while the socket timeout hasn't, and it reports that there's no route to the host and resets its state. Then on the *next* socket request it sends another arp request (because the host may have appeared since the last time it checked), and the cycle repeats. I think this is a reasonable way for it to behave when the socket timeout is shorter than the arp response timeout, because otherwise you'd either lose the information that there's no route to the host, or you'd lose the association between "open the socket" and "send an arp". But like I said, I'm not an expert at the layer 2 stuff. I suppose in theory one could associate arp requests with socket operations one-for-one, but that would require more memory and I'm not surprised that the network stack doesn't go that route.
---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue31268> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
