On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:30:30PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> > I think it's big enough. If it isn't it means that somebody
> > has reordered the packets by 30000 which I find hard to
> > believe :)
>
> I was thinking about some kind of nfs server with huge recv
> buffers and increased limits receiving at 50kpps experiencing
> a delayed fragment once in a while. Definitely a rare case
> but not impossible ;->
The worst that can happen if 30000 is too low is that we drop
a packet when we shouldn't. IMHO if a single host sends us an
incomplete packet, followed by 30000 unrelated fragments, and
finally a fragment of the original packet, then it is only
fair for us to drop that packet.
OTOH if you're arguing that 30000 is too high then you might have
a point. However, in that respect it cannot be any worse than
what we have now which is essentially unlimited.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
|