| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 19 May 2005 10:02:45 -0700 |
| In-reply-to: | <20050519122319.GH15391@postel.suug.ch> |
| References: | <428B6B72.5010407@hp.com> <E1DYWM2-0004jM-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> <20050519122319.GH15391@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 |
I agree, however defining a value of 600 system wide is horrible for all hosts that behave "correctly". So what we could do is take probes of the id distribution and define the threshold on a per peer scope. Why would 600 penalize a host behaving "correctly?" I mean, what are the chances of a datagram's being reassembled, if 600 subsent datagrams have arrived from that same host? rick |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Fw: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, Andrew Morton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Fw: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, James Morris |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 1/2] Resend: LSM-IPSec Networking Hooks, jaegert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |