| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance tests |
| From: | Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:51:01 -0700 |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030617.133635.84366118.davem@redhat.com> |
| References: | <20030617200721.GA25773@netnation.com> <1055881034.3199.43.camel@tux.rsn.bth.se> <20030617203703.GB25773@netnation.com> <20030617.133635.84366118.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:36:35PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > I have no idea why they do this, it's the stupidest thing > you can possibly do by default. > > If we thought it was a good idea to turn this on by default > we would have done so in the kernel. > > Does anyone have some cycles to spare to try and urge whoever is > repsponsible for this in Debian to leave the kernel's default setting > alone? Sure, I can do this. But why is this stupid? It uses more CPU, but stops IP spoofing by default. Specific firewall rules would have to be created otherwise. And the overhead only really shows when the routing table is large, right? Simon- |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance tests, Robert Olsson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance tests, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance tests, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |