> On 3 Sep, 2018, at 3:29 pm, David Lang wrote:
>
> how much ARP traffic would there have to be before the benefits of this
> outweigh the overhead of tracking it?
If there's very little ARP traffic (as normal), then the overhead of
recognising it is basically nil.
The benefits become
> On 3 Sep, 2018, at 2:14 pm, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> However, in normal operation ARPs should be fairly rare, so adding this
> support to CAKE would mostly be to protect against flooding, wouldn't
> it?
Mostly it's just for consistency's sake. Currently all ARPs end up in a single
Jonathan Morton writes:
>> On 2 Sep, 2018, at 10:37 pm, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> Didn't know we had this now.
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg413986.html
>
> Does that automagically give Cake an idea of the IP addresses
> associated with the packet, for host-fairness purposes? If
