Re: [lwip-devel] etharp.c updating

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Kieran,

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Kieran Mansley <address@hidden> wrote:
> Is there a downside to the current behaviour?  As I see it we keep the ARP 
> table small this way too, and so it tends to only have entries for addresses 
> we're communicating with, rather than filling up with all the addresses of 
> the current broadcast
> domain.
>
Update means only update the entry if it already exists, i.e. we are
not filling the ARP table with random hosts.

Regards,
-- 
Leon