netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy.. While working on ip.h stuff

To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy.. While working on ip.h stuff
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Jan Rekorajski <baggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, waltje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <0102261546570H.02007@mistress>
References: <14998.2628.144784.585248@pizda.ninka.net> <20010225163836.A12173@metastasis.f00f.org> <20010225045420.B10281@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <0102261546570H.02007@mistress>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Peddemors writes:
 > A few things.. why is ip.h not part of the linux/include/net rather than 
 > linux/include/linux hierachy?

Exported to older userlands...

 > Defined items that are not used anywhere in the source..
 > Can any of them be deleted now?
 > <see below>

So what, userland makes use of them :-)

 > Also, I was looking into some RFC 1812 stuff. (Thanks for nothing Dave :) 
 > and 
 > was looking at 4.2.2.6 where it mentions that a router MUST implement the 
 > End 
 > of Option List option..  Havent' figured out where that is implememented 
 > yet..

egrep "IPOPT_END" net/ipv4/ip_options.c

You just aren't looking hard enough.

 > Also was trying to figure out some things. 
 > I want to create a new ip_option for use in some DOS protection experiments.
 > I have a whole 40 bytes (+/-) to share...  Now although I don't see anything 
 > explicitly prohibiting the use of unused IP Header option space, I know that 
 > it really was designed for use by the sending parties, and not routers in 
 > between.. Has anyone seen any RFC that explicitly says I MUST NOT?

Not to my knowledge.  Routers already change the time to live field,
so I see no reason why they can't do smart things with special IP
options either (besides efficiency concerns :-).

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@xxxxxxxxxx

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