| To: | sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance tests |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:24 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030617205101.GD25773@netnation.com> |
| References: | <20030617203703.GB25773@netnation.com> <20030617.133635.84366118.davem@redhat.com> <20030617205101.GD25773@netnation.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:51:01 -0700 Specific firewall rules would have to be created otherwise. And the overhead only really shows when the routing table is large, right? rp filter breaks things... just like firewalls break things... so just like a user enables firewall rules by himself, he may enable rp filter by himself... |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Janice Girouard |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance tests, Simon Kirby |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance tests, Pekka Savola |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |