| To: | akepner@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 11:48:29 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171104030.29021@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505170914130.29021@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171104030.29021@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:28:05 -0700 (PDT) > On Tue, 17 May 2005, David S.Miller wrote: > > > Decreasing ipfrag_time is also not an option, because then > > you break fragmentation for packet radio folks :-) > > Different sysctls for different folks.... Can I tell users to call you when they enable the strict fragmentation and they can no longer talk UDP to remote sites outside of their subnet, or it breaks on their heavily SMP machine due to natural system local packet reordering? Packet reordering happens on the local machine with SMP. There is no way to avoid this. And when it triggers your patch will drop frags on the ground all the time. If you want to fix things, do it without knowingly breaking stuff that does currently work. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Arthur Kepner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Arthur Kepner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |