On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Mario Rugiero <mrugi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El lun., 7 oct. 2019 a las 16:07, Guy Harris (<ghar...@sonic.net>) escribió: > >> So are you saying that, even if you're using libpcap to implement a protocol >> running directly atop the link layer, rather than passively sniffing >> traffic, you still get a packet firehose? >> > No, I get a packet fire hose because I passively sniff. And presumably you're not doing that in immediate mode. (tcpdump *currently* uses immediate mode if it's in sniff-and-print mode, but maybe it should select a shorter timeout instead - and perhaps, these days, a 1-second timeout is too much even if you're capturing to a file.) > The protocol idea is new to me. And that's where I'm saying we might want to use non-memory-mapped capturing. _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
