[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

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@xxxxxx>
References: <m1k6lx7gkf.fsf@xxxxxx> <20050517.132202.59028935.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050517202730.GA79960@xxxxxx> <20050517.140245.71090021.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <428A613F.1020303@xxxxxx>
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. 


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