| To: | Vincent Roqueta <vincent.roqueta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IP More Fragements bit problem. |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:24:42 +0100 |
| Cc: | Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Reix <Tony.Reix@xxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200502111708.16024.vincent.roqueta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (Vincent Roqueta's message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:08:16 +0100") |
| References: | <200502111708.16024.vincent.roqueta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Vincent Roqueta <vincent.roqueta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > D + MF > *DELAY* > A + MF > B + MF > C + MF > D + MF > *DELAY* > ... > > After a while AIX destroy first fragments because of the IP fragements life > time. Trond Myklebust said me you can do anything for that? Are you sure? I tested 2.6.10rc3 and it works correctly for me with ping. The algorithm in ip_fragment() looks good too from visual inspection. And ping uses the same code to fragment as NFS sunrpc over UDP. 19:15:24.100934 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1480@1480+) 19:15:24.100938 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1480@2960+) 19:15:24.100943 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1480@4440+) 19:15:24.100947 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1480@5920+) 19:15:24.100951 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1480@7400+) 19:15:24.100957 averell > trent: (frag 64564:1128@8880) <--- No MF. Also why are you testing NFSv4 over UDP anyways? I thought everybody was finally running it over TCP now. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc3 5/5] bonding: Update/rewrite bonding.txt, Jay Vosburgh |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IP More Fragements bit problem., Nivedita Singhvi |
| Previous by Thread: | IP More Fragements bit problem., Vincent Roqueta |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IP More Fragements bit problem., Vincent Roqueta |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |