On Thursday 25 April 2002 10:32 am, Ramin Alidousti wrote:

Ramin,

As far as connecting hosts to that particular machine, i would say hundreds. 
I was thinking about compiling the kernel with ARP Daemon enabled. What do 
you think ?

Paul

> This is from the kernel config. It might be your problem. How many
> hosts do you have on your internal segment?
>
> Ramin
>
> ----
> CONFIG_ARPD:
>
> Normally, the kernel maintains an internal cache which maps IP
> addresses to hardware addresses on the local network, so that
> Ethernet/Token Ring/ etc. frames are sent to the proper address on
> the physical networking layer. For small networks having a few
> hundred directly connected hosts or less, keeping this address
> resolution (ARP) cache inside the kernel works well. However,
> maintaining an internal ARP cache does not work well for very large
> switched networks, and will use a lot of kernel memory if TCP/IP
> connections are made to many machines on the network.
>
> If you say Y here, the kernel's internal ARP cache will never grow
> to more than 256 entries (the oldest entries are expired in a LIFO
> manner) and communication will be attempted with the user space ARP
> daemon arpd. Arpd then answers the address resolution request either
> from its own cache or by asking the net.
>
> This code is experimental and also obsolete. If you want to use it,
> you need to find a version of the daemon arpd on the net somewhere,
> and you should also say Y to "Kernel/User network link driver",
> below. If unsure, say N.
> ----
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:04:16AM -0500, hyooga wrote:
> > Greeting :)
> >
> > Lately, i have been seeing this in my log file "Neighbour table
> > overflow." I have looked through newsgroup and advised to check loopback
> > interface but there is nothing wrong. Check tcpdump and found unanswered
> > arp requests.
> >
> > I am running 2.4.18 with iptables 1.2.5 with ip_connect_max set to 8192
> > and running 1gig ram.
> >
> > Could anyone please lead me to the right place.
> > Thanks in advanced
> >
> > Paul

Reply via email to