El lun., 7 oct. 2019 17:05, Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> escribió:
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Mario Rugiero <mrugi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > El lun., 7 oct. 2019 a las 16:07, Guy Harris (<ghar...@sonic.net>) > escribió: > > > >> So are you saying that, even if you're using libpcap to implement a > protocol running directly atop the link layer, rather than passively > sniffing traffic, you still get a packet firehose? > >> > > No, I get a packet fire hose because I passively sniff. > > And presumably you're not doing that in immediate mode. (tcpdump > *currently* uses immediate mode if it's in sniff-and-print mode, but maybe > it should select a shorter timeout instead - and perhaps, these days, a > 1-second timeout is too much even if you're capturing to a file.) > I don't think so, but I should probably check. > > > The protocol idea is new to me. > > And that's where I'm saying we might want to use non-memory-mapped > capturing. I see. _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
