| To: | jheffner@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 12:09:50 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, akepner@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200505171457.38719.jheffner@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m1zmut7l5q.fsf@xxxxxx> <200505171457.38719.jheffner@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:57:38 -0400 > It would be better still to have a per-route packet reassembly timeout in > milliseconds. I agree. And if we can setup the infrastructure such that the drivers can indicate the speed of the link they are communicating on, then we can set sane default values on the automatically created subnet routes. These would need to be refreshed when link state changes, but we have the mechanics for that kind of device event stuff already. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, John Heffner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |