Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Tue, 20 May 2003 19:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pizda.ninka.net (IDENT:root@pizda.ninka.net [216.101.162.242])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h4L2i82x025285
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 20 May 2003 19:44:08 -0700
Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10288;
	Tue, 20 May 2003 19:42:44 -0700
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20030520.194243.68152249.davem@redhat.com>
To: Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Route hash code comparison
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <16074.21513.492796.943255@robur.slu.se>
References: <16074.21513.492796.943255@robur.slu.se>
X-FalunGong: Information control.
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 2630
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: davem@redhat.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev

   From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se>
   Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:12:57 +0200
   
   The new hash have random keys but seems to be pretty consistent in
   term of hashing at least from observerations. No DoS experiments
   done.

Thank you for posting these test results Robert.