| To: | ahu@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] USAGI IPsec |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:43:18 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20021012121650.GA10827@outpost.ds9a.nl> |
| References: | <20021012111759.GA10104@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20021012.044137.42774593.davem@redhat.com> <20021012121650.GA10827@outpost.ds9a.nl> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 14:16:50 +0200 Some people on #lartc were wondering about the use of a route cache if there is only one route. It was reported that a single default route on a system that talks to many destinations would lead to a huge route cache, which is probably not more efficient than looking up the simple route. Would this 'small efficient flow cache' also solve this problem? I contend there is no "problem". Routing cache entries are garbage collected, and even this can be tuned via sysctl. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] USAGI IPsec, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Patch: Idea for RFC2863 conform OperStatus, Stefan Rompf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] USAGI IPsec, bert hubert |
| Next by Thread: | PATCH idea - netlink and link changes, Tim Hockin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |