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 /<
address@hidden>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Kieran Mansley <
address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Why so many pbufs required?
> To: "Mailing list for lwIP users" <
address@hidden>
> 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
>
address@hidden </mc/compose?to=
address@hidden>
>
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
>
address@hidden>
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hiddenhttp://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users