| To: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Arthur Kepner <akepner@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <428A613F.1020303@hp.com> |
| References: | <m1k6lx7gkf.fsf@muc.de> <20050517.132202.59028935.davem@davemloft.net> <20050517202730.GA79960@muc.de> <20050517.140245.71090021.davem@davemloft.net> <428A613F.1020303@hp.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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. -- Arthur |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH 2/2] Resend: LSM-IPSec Networking Hooks, jaegert |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |