| To: | "Bill Rugolsky Jr." <brugolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts |
| From: | Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:52:58 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050202223853.GA29237@ti64.telemetry-investments.com> |
| References: | <20050202133851.GA9680@suse.de> <20050202222516.GA15440@suse.de> <20050202223853.GA29237@ti64.telemetry-investments.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt und vi sind doch schneller als Notes (und GroupWise) |
On Wed, Feb 02, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote: > I don't have time to look now [I'm running for the door], > but that's possibly the vmalloc() limit of 64M (67108864) ? maybe. ->size is a userprovided value, havent looked closely at iptables source. It seems we have to live with this limitation. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, Bill Rugolsky Jr. |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6.10] tg3: 5704 serdes fixes, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, Bill Rugolsky Jr. |
| Next by Thread: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, Olaf Kirch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |