| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 09:21:06 -0700 |
| In-reply-to: | <20050518013712.GH13748@postel.suug.ch> |
| References: | <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net> <E1DYAHF-0006qW-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> <20050518004733.GG13748@postel.suug.ch> <20050518011632.GA27813@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050518013712.GH13748@postel.suug.ch> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 |
|
If we ass-u-me that the sender is indeed using a random IP ID assignment
mechanism, 30000 is probably too many. There are only 65536 possible ID's, and
if we "choose" 30000 of them there will undoubtedly be many duplicated. Someone
who didn't fall asleep too often in ProbStats (unlike myself) can probably tell
us just how many. Also, I think the count has to be _any_ IP datagram on that src/dst pair, fragmented or not. Someone else pointed-out the possiblity of sending use one fragmetned datagram, then 64K to someone else - well, those 64K to someone else could just as easily be 64K non-fragmented IP datagrams to us, so it seems for a measure of "out of orderness liklihood" we need to include non-fragmented IP datagrams. The thought of having to do added accounting on a non-fragmented datagram seems unpleasant though. rick jones |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] NUMA aware allocation of transmit and receive buffers for e1000, Ganesh Venkatesan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 - sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:2502, Chris Wright |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |