netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Route cache performance tests

To: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Route cache performance tests
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:50:53 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx>, <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xerox@xxxxxxxxxx>, <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030617205101.GD25773@netnation.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:36:35PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> > I have no idea why they do this, it's the stupidest thing
> > you can possibly do by default.
> > 
> > If we thought it was a good idea to turn this on by default
> > we would have done so in the kernel.
> > 
> > Does anyone have some cycles to spare to try and urge whoever is
> > repsponsible for this in Debian to leave the kernel's default setting
> > alone?
> 
> Sure, I can do this.  But why is this stupid?  It uses more CPU, but
> stops IP spoofing by default.  Specific firewall rules would have to be
> created otherwise.  And the overhead only really shows when the routing
> table is large, right?

Personally I think rp_filter by default is the only good choice
(security/operational-wise).  It's typically not useful when you have a
lot of routes, though.. but as the 99.9% of users _don't_, it still seems 
like a good default value.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>