netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Badly documented sysctl?

To: Oskar Andreasson <blueflux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Badly documented sysctl?
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Cc: <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211012014340.20535-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
You are correct. So fix the doc.

cheers,
jamal


On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Oskar Andreasson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just started checking out the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/error_cost and
> error_burst sysctl's. According to
> linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt:
>
> ----
>
> error_burst and error_cost
> --------------------------
>
> These parameters are used to limit the warning messages written to the
> kernel log from the routing code.  The higher the error_cost factor is,
> the fewer messages will be written. Error_burst controls when messages
> will be dropped. The default settings limit warning messages to one every
> five seconds.
>
> ----
>
> I just spent some time reading the source code in question, and if I am
> not totally off base... this is totally wrong? I am currently checking
> linux/net/ipv4/route.c, and if I am right, it limits how many
> ICMP_DEST_UNREACH we are sending to a specific host, and _possibly_ it
> will also printk() in the ip_rt_send_redirect() function. I don't know for
> sure, but I _think_ the default settings will limit ICMP_DEST_UNREACH
> sending in ip_error() to 5 per second...
>
> If anyone would shed some light on this, I would be tremenduously happy!
>
> ----
> Oskar Andreasson
> http://www.frozentux.net
> mailto:blueflux@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>