netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

from [Rick Jones] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:21:47 -0700
In-reply-to: <20050517.120950.74749758.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net> <m1zmut7l5q.fsf@muc.de> <200505171457.38719.jheffner@psc.edu> <20050517.120950.74749758.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304
David S. Miller wrote: 
From: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:57:38 -0400


It would be better still to have a per-route packet reassembly timeout in milliseconds. 


I agree.  And if we can setup the infrastructure such that the
drivers can indicate the speed of the link they are communicating
on, then we can set sane default values on the automatically
created subnet routes.

Does the ingress link really tell us all that much about the path a given datagram's fragments took to get to us? Even if the source IP is ostensibly a local one?

rick jones

[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Andi Kleen
Next by Date:  Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi
Previous by Thread:  Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller
Next by Thread:  Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Ben Greear
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]