From owner-freebsd-isp Fri May 18 1:56:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from ns.morning.ru (ns.morning.ru [195.161.98.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B315E37B423 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:56:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from poige@morning.ru) Received: from NIC1 ([195.161.98.236]) by ns.morning.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA86084 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:56:43 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from poige@morning.ru) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:59:34 +0700 From: Igor Podlesny X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.52 Beta/7) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Organization: Morning Network X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <5323843094.20010518165934@morning.ru> To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: net.link.ether.inet.max_age is too big? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello everybody, what do you think of default value in 1200 for net.link.ether.inet.max_age? Whether does ARP take too much efforts to have this value so big? I noticed, that it could be better to have it significantly reduced when changing, replacing key-role network computers keeping the same IP by the same time. I'm going to use something near 60-100 in common practice for networks with 5-10 boxes communicating and your advices/opinions are appreciated, thanx in advance. -- Best regards, Igor mailto:poige@morning.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message