netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:19:01 +0200
Cc: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050519124821.GA686@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <428B6B72.5010407@xxxxxx> <E1DYWM2-0004jM-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050519122319.GH15391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050519124821.GA686@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
* Herbert Xu <20050519124821.GA686@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-19 22:48
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:23:19PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > 
> > I agree, however defining a value of 600 system wide is horrible for
> > all hosts that behave "correctly". So what we could do is take probes
> > of the id distribution and define the threshold on a per peer scope.
> > 
> > Example: Once in a while we start a probe and set a bit in a bitmap
> > for every id that matches a defined window. Not sure about the size of
> > that bitmap yet but 2048 bits might be a good start. The first fragment
> 
> Sorry, but this scheme is way too complex for a problem that only affects
> a tiny section of the community.  If you really want to do this then
> do it as a static route flag instead of something that the system tries
> to auto-detect.

Yes, it's currently quite complex, I'm trying to reduce it to something
simpler. If we do the route flag thing then we should allow the same flag
for permanent neighbours as well.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>