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

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>]

Arthur Kepner wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>
> > ....
> > or an added heuristic of "if have reassembled N datagrams for the same
> > source/dest/protocol tuple with ID's "larger" than 'this one' since it has
> > arrived, we are probably going to wrap so might as well drop 'this one'"  for
> > some judicious and magical selection of N that may be a decent predictor of
> > wrap on top of some existing reassembly timout.
> > ....
>
>
> How do you define "larger" in this case? A sender is free to choose 
> any ID - they can't be assumed to be montonic, for sure. 

Actually, I was ass-u-me-ing they would be monotonic, but thinking about it 
more, that doesn't really matter.  If N datagrams from that source/dest/prot 
tuple have been reassembled since the first/current frag of this datagam has 
arrived, chances are still good that the rest of the fragments of this datagram 
are toast and any subsequent fragments with a matching src/dst/prot/id would 
likely create a frankengram.

in broad handwaving terms, those N other datagrams (non-fragmented or fragmented 
and successfully reassembled or not I suspect) are a measure of just how far 
"out of order" the rest of the fragments of this datagram happen to be.  for 
some degree of "out of orderness" we can ass-u-me the datagram is toast.

chosing a strawman, if we've received 24000 datagrams from that source/dest/prot 
(perhaps even just that source) since we've started reassembling this datagram 
from that source/dest/prot, chances seem pretty good indeed that this datagram 
is toast.  a value of N even smaller than 24000 might suffice.

the devil seems to be in the accounting.

rick jones