| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 12:21:47 -0700 |
| In-reply-to: | <20050517.120950.74749758.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m1zmut7l5q.fsf@xxxxxx> <200505171457.38719.jheffner@xxxxxxx> <20050517.120950.74749758.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 |
David S. Miller wrote: From: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:57:38 -0400It would be better still to have a per-route packet reassembly timeout in milliseconds.I agree. And if we can setup the infrastructure such that the drivers can indicate the speed of the link they are communicating on, then we can set sane default values on the automatically created subnet routes. Does the ingress link really tell us all that much about the path a given datagram's fragments took to get to us? Even if the source IP is ostensibly a local one? rick jones |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |