[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:02:04 +0000 |
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:31, Bill Auerbach wrote:
>> That maximum size of a UDP datagram should only be limited by the
>> protocol and your resources, so 64K should work, yes.
>
> With UDP being unreliable, that implies that one or more fragments could be
> dropped in a large UDP send, right?
Yes, but if one fragment is lost then the whole datagram should be discarded by
the receiving stack.
Kieran
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Mason, 2012/02/08
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, address@hidden, 2012/02/09
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Zayaz Volk, 2012/02/16
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, address@hidden, 2012/02/16
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Zayaz Volk, 2012/02/16
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Zayaz Volk, 2012/02/16
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Simon Goldschmidt, 2012/02/17
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Bill Auerbach, 2012/02/17
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release, Zayaz Volk, 2012/02/19
- [lwip-users] Fragmented datagrams, Mason, 2012/02/20