| To: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 11:16:32 +1000 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akepner@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050518004733.GG13748@postel.suug.ch> |
| References: | <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net> <E1DYAHF-0006qW-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> <20050518004733.GG13748@postel.suug.ch> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:47:33AM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > > I like this, although the problem is derived to the definition > of the threshold. Any ideas on how to define this? A The threshold doesn't need to be very large at all since it is essentially the maximum reordering distance that we allow. However, for an initial estimate we can be conservative and use something like 30000. If we're too conservative the SGI guys will tell us :) Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Arthur Kepner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |