| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 02:47:33 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akepner@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E1DYAHF-0006qW-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1DYAHF-0006qW-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* Herbert Xu <E1DYAHF-0006qW-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-18 08:11 > Instead of measuring the distance using time, let's measure it > in terms of packet counts. So every time we receive a fragmented > packet, we find all waiting fragments with the same src/dst pair. > If the id is identical we perform reassembly, if it isn't we increase > a counter in that fragment. If the counter exceeds a threshold, > we drop the fragment. I like this, although the problem is derived to the definition of the threshold. Any ideas on how to define this? A combination of your idea together with the idea I stated in another post which would additional expire fragments earlier depending on the actual packet (or fragment) rate might give better results. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Arthur Kepner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |