I agree, but this is still better than crashing the machine... Aron -----Original Message----- From: Michael Renzmann [mailto:mrenzmann@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:33 PM To: Aron Brand Cc: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; roy@xxxxxx Subject: Re: RE: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #1558 - 9 msgs Hi. Aron Brand wrote: > does this. Another option would be to trick the kernel that the packet > has been transmitted, to prevent the immediate retries, while actually > vanishing the packet. I'm also no pro in this area, but I think this would be a bad idea. I guess this would have impact on the interface's statistics about sent, received and dropped packets, making it hard to look for network configuration errors and similar things. Bye, Mike _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
