[ dropped source-changes ]

In message <5006.963162552@coconut.itojun.org>, itojun@iijlab.net writes:

>>being more generic (configurable period).
>
>	i just do not feel like adding more complexity into it.  do you have
>	a plan for real use of "N events in M second"?  if that can be
>	covered by "N events in 1 second", I'd say i like simpler one.

Well, I guess I had been thinking about icmp.errratelimit.

Right now it's set to a 1000us interval, so perhaps
we would set it to 1000pps, and I guess that's fine.

My brain was stuck thinking it was a much smaller limit (probably
because it ends up being one, practically speaking), and if
we had a limit of 10pps, that would be better implemented as
100packets/10sec, IMO.

But since we don't, I guess that's not a problem, so I don't see
an explicit use allowing the period to be specified.

Besides, if we really did make the period configurable, we'd
have to totally throw out the ppsratecheck() name. ;-)

--jhawk