netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP

from [David S. Miller] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paulus@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, fcusack@xxxxxxxxx, carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1056578813.27267.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1056547262.1945.1436.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <1056578813.27267.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
   From: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:06:54 -0400

   Exactly this mechanism is what I had in mind.  
   
Great.

   The open question remaining is if there are any protocols which can be
   affected by packets being processed out of order.  Some people have
   suggested that there are.  If not, then there's not much to discuss. Can
   anyone comment on this decisively, either way?

TCP, as one example, is able to cope very well.  It is even able to
distinguish reordering from true packet loss.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: Weird modem behaviour in 2.5.73-mm1, Stephen Hemminger
Next by Date:  Re: [PATCH] (0/7) ipmr fixes, James Morris
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, Michal Ostrowski
Next by Thread:  Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, Rusty Russell
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]