| To: | ltd@xxxxxxxxx (Lincoln Dale) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:03:47 +0100 (BST) |
| Cc: | vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Horst von Brand), davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ben Greear), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5.1.0.14.2.20020612221925.0283fb18@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Lincoln Dale" at Jun 12, 2002 10:28:15 PM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> i know of many many folk who use transaction logs from HTTP caches for > volume-based billing. > right now, those bills are anywhere between 10% to 25% incorrect. > > you call that "extremely limited"? It wouldnt help you anyway. Prove which frames were not due to the overloading and congestion/errors on your network which therefore the customer should not have a duty to pay. Account for bitstuffing on HDLC links... |
| Previous by Date: | T/TCP patch Beta-1.0 for kernel 2.4.2 launched., Laudney Ren |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets, Lincoln Dale |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets, David Schwartz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets, Lincoln Dale |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |